California Sets Precedent: No More Hiding Behind Bogus PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Set: Employers Can’t Outsource Accountability – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Draws the Line: Fraudulent PEO Coverage Doesn’t Cut It – Workers Rights Compliance, New Legal Benchmark: PEO Schemes Won’t Shield Employers – Workers Rights Compliance, Garcias Pallets Case Becomes First-Ever DLSE Precedent – Workers Rights Compliance, Historic First: California Labor Commissioner Issues Precedent Ruling on PEO Fraud – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Makes It Official—No Valid Workers’ Comp, No Excuses – Workers Rights Compliance, Real Coverage for Real Workers: Fraud Won’t Fly in California – Workers Rights Compliance, Workers Deserve Real Protection—Bogus Insurance Doesn’t Count – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Protects Workers from Fake Insurance Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, 50+ Workers, No Coverage—California Says Never Again – Workers Rights Compliance, Labor Law Victory: Worker Safety Over Corporate Shell Games – Workers Rights Compliance, $1.3M Lesson: Ignorance of the Law Is No Defense – Workers Rights Compliance, Certificates Can Lie—Employers Are Still on the Hook – Workers Rights Compliance, Fraudulent Coverage = Real Fines – Workers Rights Compliance, The Bill Comes Due: $1.3M in Fines for Workers' Comp Evasion – Workers Rights Compliance, Subcontracting Liability Doesn’t Mean Subcontracting Responsibility – Workers Rights Compliance, A Win for Honest PEOs, a Loss for Cheaters – Workers Rights Compliance, Leveling the Field: Fraudulent Operators Face Real Consequences – Workers Rights Compliance, PEO Accountability Is Here—Honest Brokers Applaud – Workers Rights Compliance, No More Free Ride for Fraudulent PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Justice for Legitimate Employers—Fraudsters Pay the Price – Workers Rights Compliance, From CompOne to CompassPilot—The Shell Game Ends Here – Workers Rights Compliance, How a Bogus Insurance Scheme Cost One Company $1.3 Million – Workers Rights Compliance, Unmasking the PEO Scam: California Cracks Down – Workers Rights Compliance, One Employer, Three PEOs, Zero Coverage—The Precedent Tells All – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Precedent Highlights Deep Industry Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, Fake Insurance Certificates Are Not a Defense—They’re a Liability – Workers Rights Compliance, Employers: Verify Your Workers’ Comp Coverage—Before the State Does – Workers Rights Compliance, Don’t Get Burned—Understand Joint Employer Liability Today – Workers Rights Compliance, Legit PEO? Or Just a New Name for the Same Old Scam? – Workers Rights Compliance, Your PEO’s Certificate Might Be Fake—Know the Signs – Workers Rights Compliance, Before You Contract Labor, Read This Precedent Decision – Workers Rights Compliance.
Revenue Guidance: ~$93B in mobility/broadband service revenue (2-3% growth) Adjusted EPS: $4.90-4.95 (4-5% growth) Current Price Context: At ~$40-41/share, this implies a forward P/E of roughly 8.1-8.4x Dividend Yield: ~6.5% (extremely high, potential warning signal)
Key Turnaround Catalysts
1. Volume Momentum (Big Shift)
Q4 2025: 616K postpaid phone adds (best since 2019)
Expected annual return: 12-15% (dividends + options) with downside protection
Final Verdict: Income Play with Turnaround Optionality
If you need income TODAY: VZ is compelling at 6.5% yield IF you believe dividend is sustainable (I assign 75% probability it’s maintained through 2028).
If you want growth: Buy TMUS instead; VZ won’t triple even in best case.
Risk/Reward: VZ offers 4:1 upside/downside from $40:
Upside: $52-58 (30-45% gain) if turnaround works
Downside: $34-36 (10-15% loss) if dividend cut forces re-rating
Most likely: $44-48 (10-20% gain) + 19% in dividends over 3 years
The bet you’re making: Dan Schulman can execute a telecom turnaround in the shadow of T-Mobile’s dominance, while servicing massive debt and maintaining a dividend that pays out 80%+ of free cash flow.
My take: More credible than most telecom turnarounds, but the dividend limits capital flexibility. It’s a “yield + modest growth” story, not a compounder.
Revenue Guidance: $59.5-62.5 billion Adjusted EPS: $2.80-3.00 Current Price Context: At recent trading around $25-26/share, this implies a forward P/E of roughly 8.3-9.3x
Pfizer offers asymmetric risk/reward at current prices. The market is pricing in minimal pipeline success and no obesity upside. Given the dividend floor, downside is limited to ~15-20%, while upside could be 50-90% if even half the pipeline delivers.
For a Protected Wheel/Collar strategy: PFE is excellent due to:
High implied volatility (option premiums rich)
Strong dividend support
Clear technical support levels
Low correlation to high-flying tech
Relative to industry: It’s the cheapest major pharma with the most catalysts over the next 24 months. Whether those catalysts deliver is the $100B question.
A Real-World Case Study in Systematic Options Income
⚠️ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER ⚠️
THIS CONTENT IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.
The information presented in this article describes options trading strategies and one trader’s real position for educational and illustrative purposes only. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security or to adopt any investment strategy.
Options trading involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. You can lose some or all of your invested capital. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The examples shown represent specific market conditions and individual results that may not be repeatable.
Before implementing any options strategy:
Consult with your qualified financial advisor or investment professional
Ensure you fully understand the risks involved
Verify the strategy aligns with your financial goals, risk tolerance, and investment timeline
Obtain appropriate options trading approval from your broker
Paper trade extensively before risking real capital
The author is not a registered investment advisor, broker-dealer, or financial planner. This article does not constitute professional financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. The strategies discussed may not be appropriate for your specific situation.
Do your own due diligence. Consult your investment adviser. Trade at your own risk.
What if you could generate 462% annual returns with downside protection and sleep soundly at night?
Most retirees are told they need to choose: either accept bond-like returns of 4-6% annually, or take equity risk with potential 50%+ drawdowns during market crashes.
There’s a third way.
The Problem with Traditional Retirement Income
The Bond Dilemma
Treasury yields: 4-5%
Corporate bonds: 5-7%
To generate $5,000/month ($60,000/year), you need $1,000,000-$1,500,000 in capital
The Stock Dilemma
S&P 500 dividends: ~1.5%
High dividend stocks: 3-5%
To generate $5,000/month in dividends, you need $1,200,000-$4,000,000
Plus you face unlimited downside risk
The Covered Call Trap
“Enhance” stock returns by 2-5% annually
Still requires massive capital ($500,000-$800,000)
Caps your upside
Offers NO downside protection
You still lose 30-50% in a crash
What if there’s a way to generate the same $5,000/month with just $129,800 in capital, with defined downside protection, and the ability to profit even in a market crash?
Note: This is an educational case study, not a recommendation. Consult your financial advisor.
Introducing: The Protected Synthetic Income Strategy
This is not theory. This is a real trade executed in February 2025 by a 70+ year-old systematic trader who demanded three non-negotiables:
Catastrophe protection — No retirement-ending losses
Positive carry — Generate income while protected
Capital efficiency — No million-dollar capital requirements
Here’s exactly what he built, and how the strategy works for educational purposes.
REMINDER: This case study is for educational illustration only. Do not replicate without consulting your investment advisor and ensuring you understand all risks involved.
The Anatomy of the Trade (Real Numbers – Educational Example)
Starting Point: Verizon (VZ) at $46.98
Why Verizon was chosen for this example:
Boring telecom utility
Stable, mean-reverting price action
High implied volatility (options are “expensive”)
Dividend aristocrat with 6%+ yield
Defensive sector (performs in recessions)
Note: Similar strategies could theoretically work on ANY stable, high-IV stock: AT&T, Exxon, Pfizer, Coca-Cola, etc. This does not constitute a recommendation to trade these securities.
The Position Structure (Per $6,490 Unit – Educational Example)
Component 1: Synthetic Long Stock (LEAPS Calls)
20× $40 call options, 345 days to expiration
Net cost: $3,690
Provides leveraged exposure to VZ upside
Controls 2,000 shares with just $3,690 capital
Compare to buying 2,000 shares: $93,960 required
Component 2: Catastrophe Protection (Long Puts)
20× $45 put options, 345 days to expiration
Net cost: $2,800
Creates a hard floor — losses capped below $39
Unlike stock ownership, you cannot lose everything
This is retirement-safe protection
Component 3: The Income Engine (Weekly Short Calls)
Sell 20× out-of-the-money calls every Monday
Weekly premium: $600 ($0.30 per contract)
Annual income: $30,000
This is the systematic cash flow concept
Total capital per unit: $6,490 Annual income per unit: $30,000 Theoretical annual yield: 462%
IMPORTANT: These are historical results from one specific trade during specific market conditions. Your results will vary. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
How the Protection Works (Educational Stress Test)
Let’s analyze this with various scenarios for educational purposes.
Scenario 1: Market Crash — VZ Drops to $35 (-25%)
What would happen to the position:
LEAPS calls: Go to zero — Loss: $3,690
Protective puts: Worth $10 each — Gain: $17,200
Weekly income (collected before crash): $7,500
Hypothetical Total P/L: +$21,010 profit Hypothetical Return: +324%
This is a theoretical example. Actual results would depend on timing, volatility, and execution. You could still lose money in practice.
Scenario 2: Sideways Market — VZ Stays $45-48
Theoretical outcome:
LEAPS calls: Slight appreciation — Gain: $10,310
Protective puts: Decay to near-zero — Loss: $1,800
Weekly income (49 weeks): $29,400
Hypothetical Total P/L: +$37,910 Hypothetical Return: +584%
This assumes consistent execution over 49 weeks with no missed weeks, no assignment problems, and stable volatility. Real-world results will differ.
Scenario 3: Bull Market — VZ Rallies to $52 (+11%)
Theoretical outcome:
LEAPS calls: Deep in the money — Gain: $20,310
Protective puts: Expire worthless — Loss: $2,800
Weekly income: $29,400
Hypothetical Total P/L: +$46,910 Hypothetical Return: +723%
This represents best-case scenario. Your actual results may be significantly lower or you could experience losses.
The Economic Floor: Where Loss Could Occur
Theoretical breakeven point: VZ would need to drop below $38 AND stay there for weeks while implied volatility collapses to zero.
Estimated probability in this example: Less than 1%
Even in the theoretical “worst case” scenario (VZ at $42, vol dies immediately):
You might still collect $5,000-7,000 in weekly income
Calls might hold some value
Puts might provide offset
Theoretical profit: 77%+
CRITICAL WARNING: This is not risk-free. These are hypothetical scenarios based on assumptions that may not hold. You can lose money. Actual outcomes depend on market conditions, execution quality, timing, volatility changes, and numerous other factors. Always consult your financial advisor before trading.
Scaling to $5,000/Month: The Hypothetical Math
Income Target
$5,000 per month = $60,000 annually
Per-Unit Economics (Theoretical)
Each $6,490 unit might generate:
Weekly income: $600
Annual income: $30,000
Hypothetical Capital Required
$60,000 ÷ $30,000 per unit = 2 units
Theoretical total capital required: 2 × $6,490 = $12,980
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: These numbers represent one specific historical example during specific market conditions. They are not projections or predictions of future results. Your actual capital requirements will likely be higher, and your income lower. Market conditions change. Volatility changes. Commission costs, slippage, and taxes will reduce actual returns. This is an educational example, not a guarantee.
The Catch (Because There’s Always a Catch)
This Is NOT Passive Income
Weekly commitment required:
25 minutes every Monday morning
Sell 40 weekly call options (2 units)
Monitor position health
Track cumulative income
This is active income harvesting, not “set and forget.”
You Must Follow Discipline
Exit rules would be non-negotiable in this strategy:
✅ Exit Rule 1: When you’ve collected a target amount in realized income ✅ Exit Rule 2: Never hold too close to expiration (theta acceleration) ✅ Exit Rule 3: If weekly premium drops below threshold for consecutive weeks, exit immediately
If you violate exit rules in practice, you could give back significant gains or turn profits into losses.
Volatility Risk
If implied volatility collapses:
Weekly income could drop from $600 → $300 per unit or lower
Annual yield could drop from 462% → 230% or lower
Strategy effectiveness could be severely reduced
This strategy depends on persistent volatility, which is not guaranteed.
The Risk Comparison (Educational Context)
Strategy
Hypothetical Capital for $5k/mo
Potential Max Loss
Typical Recovery Time
Complexity
Protected Synthetic
$12,980*
Variable**
Variable
High
Treasury Bonds
$1,000,000
~5%
3-5 years
Low
Dividend Stocks
$1,200,000
-50%+
5-10 years
Low
Covered Calls
$500,000
-45%+
5-10 years
Medium
Naked Puts
$0 (margin)
-100%
Never
Very High
*Based on one specific historical example; your capital requirements may differ significantly **Depends on position sizing, strikes chosen, market conditions, and execution
The protected synthetic strategy in this example showed higher capital efficiency, but also requires significantly more skill, knowledge, time commitment, and carries substantial risk. Consult your financial advisor to determine appropriate strategies for your situation.
REMINDER: This is an educational framework only. Do not implement without:
Consulting your financial advisor
Obtaining proper options trading approval
Paper trading for at least 90 days
Understanding you can lose money
Step 1: Choose Your Stock (Educational Criteria)
Hypothetical required characteristics:
Market cap >$20 billion (liquidity)
Implied volatility >20% (need premium)
Beta <1.2 (stability)
Weekly options available (critical)
Dividend yield >3% (stability signal)
Example candidates (NOT recommendations):
Verizon (VZ)
AT&T (T)
Exxon Mobil (XOM)
Pfizer (PFE)
Coca-Cola (KO)
Procter & Gamble (PG)
Avoid in this strategy framework:
Growth stocks (too volatile)
Meme stocks (unpredictable)
Stocks without weekly options
Anything with earnings in next 30 days
Consult your financial advisor about appropriate securities for your situation.
Step 2: Build the Position (Educational Example Entry)
For each hypothetical $6,490 unit:
Buy 20× LEAPS calls (example)
Strike: 15% below current price
Expiration: 12-18 months out
Target cost: ~$3,500-4,000
Buy 20× protective puts (example)
Strike: 3-5% below current price
Same expiration as calls
Target cost: ~$2,500-3,000
Sell first weekly calls (example)
20 contracts
Strike: 2-4% above current price
Target premium: $0.30+ per contract
Hypothetical total cost: $6,000-7,000 per unit
CRITICAL: These are example parameters from one historical trade. Market conditions change. Volatility changes. You must adjust based on current market conditions and consult your advisor. Do not blindly copy these parameters.
Step 3: Weekly Execution (Educational Routine)
The hypothetical Monday Morning Routine (25 minutes):
9:00 AM – Market Check (5 min)
Review stock price from Friday close
Check implied volatility levels
Note any overnight news
9:05 AM – Position Review (5 min)
Calculate current mark-to-market value
Update cumulative income spreadsheet
Check if exit trigger hit
9:10 AM – Sell Weekly Calls (10 min)
Open options chain
Select strikes (example: 2-4% above current price)
Sell appropriate number of contracts
Target: Collect premium
Execute order
9:20 AM – Documentation (5 min)
Log premium collected
Update total P/L
Note days to expiration
Note: This is an idealized routine. Real-world execution involves commission costs, slippage, potential assignment issues, and market gaps that complicate the process. Consult your advisor.
Step 4: Position Management (Ongoing Education)
Monthly check-in (15 minutes):
Review cumulative income
Assess if on track for exit trigger
Verify puts still provide adequate protection
Consider rolling adjustments
Quarterly adjustment:
Review overall strategy effectiveness
Consider position adjustments
Evaluate whether to continue
IMPORTANT: This is active management. If you cannot commit to this schedule, do not attempt this strategy.
Step 5: Exit the Trade (Critical Discipline in Example)
In the educational example, exits occurred when:
✅ Primary trigger: Collected target income per unit
✅ Hard stop: Time-based exit to avoid theta acceleration
✅ Emergency exit: If volatility collapsed or other conditions changed
Discipline on exits was cited as critical to protecting profits in the example.
In practice, determining proper exit timing requires experience, judgment, and market awareness. Consult your financial advisor.
The Retirement Income Concept (Educational Illustration)
Hypothetical Scenario: Retiree Needs $5,000/Month
Traditional approach:
Might need $1,000,000 in bonds/dividend stocks
4-6% safe withdrawal rate
Exposed to inflation erosion
Exposed to market crashes
Hypothetical Protected Synthetic approach in example:
Starting capital in example: $12,980
Year 1 in example:
Deployed $12,980 into 2 units
Generated $60,000 in income
Exited with $40,000-44,000 total profit
Used $5,000/month for 12 months
This was ONE trader’s result in SPECIFIC market conditions. This is NOT a projection of what you will achieve. Your results will almost certainly differ. You could lose money.
The Diversification Concept (Risk Management Education)
Educational principle: Never put all capital in one stock.
For $5,000/Month Income Target (Hypothetical)
Two-stock approach example:
Unit 1: One stable stock ($6,490)
Unit 2: Different sector stock ($6,490)
Hypothetical total: $12,980
Four-stock approach example:
Four different sectors with smaller position sizes
Same total capital, spread across positions
Theoretical benefit: If one sector has problems, other positions unaffected.
IMPORTANT: Diversification does not guarantee profit or protect against loss. Consult your advisor about appropriate diversification for your situation.
What Could Go Wrong? (Honest Risk Education)
Risk 1: Volatility Collapse
What could happen:
Implied volatility drops significantly
Weekly premium falls substantially
Income cut dramatically
Potential impact:
Strategy becomes much less effective
Returns drop significantly
May no longer meet income needs
This is a real risk. Volatility can and does collapse unpredictably.
Risk 2: Poor Timing/Execution
What could happen:
Ignore exit rules
Hold too long
Theta decay accelerates
Give back gains
Potential impact:
Turn large profits into small profits
Turn profits into losses
Significant capital erosion
Discipline is critical. Most individual traders struggle with this.
Risk 3: Stock-Specific Disaster
What could happen:
Company scandal, dividend cut, bankruptcy risk
Stock gaps down significantly overnight
Position integrity compromised
Potential impact:
Even with puts, could still lose money
Need to exit immediately
Loss of income from that position
Individual stock risk is real. Even “safe” stocks can have problems.
Risk 4: Assignment and Management Issues
What could happen:
Short calls go in-the-money
Get assigned
Need to manage complex situations
Mistakes in re-establishing positions
Potential impact:
Transaction costs
Tracking errors
Potential losses from mistakes
Active management creates opportunity for errors.
Risk 5: Market Structure Changes
What could happen:
Regulations change
Options liquidity dries up
Bid-ask spreads widen
Trading costs increase
Potential impact:
Strategy becomes unworkable
Returns decrease substantially
Increased costs eat profits
Market conditions can change. Past favorable conditions don’t guarantee future conditions.
The Capital Efficiency Comparison (Educational Context)
Let’s compare hypothetical capital requirements side-by-side for $5,000/month retirement income:
Traditional Retirement Strategies
4% Safe Withdrawal Rate:
Hypothetical need: $1,500,000
Annual withdrawal: $60,000
Dividend Stock Portfolio (5% yield):
Hypothetical need: $1,200,000
Annual dividends: $60,000
Covered Calls on Stock (12% enhanced yield):
Hypothetical need: $500,000
Annual income: $60,000
Protected Synthetic Strategy Example
Capital in example: $12,980
Income in example: $60,000
This was one specific historical case
CRITICAL DISTINCTION: The traditional strategies are based on long-term historical averages across many market conditions and many participants. The Protected Synthetic example is ONE person’s result during ONE specific period. These are not comparable in terms of reliability, repeatability, or risk level.
Always consult your financial advisor about appropriate strategies for your situation and risk tolerance.
Who This Strategy Education Is NOT For
Let’s be clear about who should avoid attempting this:
❌ People who can’t commit significant weekly time
Requires consistent attention
Missing weeks can be costly
❌ People uncomfortable with volatility
Short-term fluctuations will occur
Requires emotional discipline
❌ People who can’t follow complex rules
Exit discipline is critical
Rule violations lead to losses
❌ People with inadequate capital
Need sufficient buffer
Never use money you can’t afford to lose
❌ People without options knowledge
This requires significant expertise
Don’t learn on real money
Paper trade extensively first
❌ People without professional guidance
Consult your financial advisor first
Ensure you understand all risks
Verify suitability for your situation
Who This Educational Content Is For
✅ Experienced options traders seeking advanced education ✅ People with qualified financial advisors to consult ✅ Traders comfortable with active management ✅ People willing to paper trade extensively first ✅ Those seeking to understand capital-efficient structures ✅ Individuals with appropriate risk tolerance and capital
Even if you fit this profile, consult your financial advisor before implementing any strategy described here.
The Bottom Line (Educational Summary)
This Is Not Magic
It’s a structural approach based on:
Options pricing inefficiencies
Systematic premium collection
Defined risk through protective puts
The math of leverage and time decay
It works in some market conditions and fails in others:
Volatility can collapse
Theta can erode value
Disasters happen
Execution errors occur
This Is Not Risk-Free
You can lose money if:
Market conditions change
You make execution errors
You ignore exit rules
You use inappropriate position sizing
Volatility collapses
Individual stock disasters occur
Maximum loss in educational example: Theoretically small, but real-world losses could be substantial depending on market conditions and execution.
This Requires Expertise
Prerequisites:
Advanced options knowledge
Active management capability
Emotional discipline
Professional guidance
Appropriate capital
Realistic expectations
⚠️ FINAL IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER ⚠️
THIS ARTICLE IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
The case study presented describes one individual trader’s actual position and results during a specific time period in specific market conditions. These results:
Are not typical
Are not guaranteed
Are not projections of future performance
May not be repeatable
Do not constitute a recommendation
Options trading involves substantial risk of loss. You can lose some or all of your invested capital. The strategies described are complex and suitable only for experienced traders with appropriate risk tolerance, capital, and professional guidance.
Before considering any options strategy:
Consult your qualified financial advisor or investment professional
Ensure you fully understand the risks
Verify the strategy is appropriate for YOUR specific financial situation
Obtain proper options trading approval from your broker
Paper trade extensively before risking real capital
Understand that past performance does not guarantee future results
The author:
Is not a registered investment advisor
Is not a broker-dealer
Is not a financial planner
Is not providing investment advice
Is not recommending any specific securities or strategies
This content does not constitute professional financial, investment, tax, or legal advice.
Market conditions change. Volatility changes. What worked in the past may not work in the future. You are solely responsible for your own trading decisions and outcomes.
DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE. CONSULT YOUR INVESTMENT ADVISER. UNDERSTAND THE RISKS. TRADE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Educational Summary
This article explored an advanced options income strategy for educational purposes, using one trader’s real position as a case study. The key educational concepts covered:
Capital efficiency through synthetic positions and leverage
Risk management through protective puts and position sizing
Income generation through systematic premium selling
Discipline and exits as critical success factors
Realistic risk assessment including what can go wrong
Whether this or any strategy is appropriate for you depends entirely on your specific situation, risk tolerance, knowledge level, and financial goals.
Consult your financial advisor. Make informed decisions. Understand the risks.
This educational content is provided for informational purposes only. Always seek professional guidance before making investment decisions.
GLW -3.64%, CIEN -5.06%, GEV -6.49% on Massive Volume
Thursday was a massacre. Every single name we’ve been calling ‘quality’ got destroyed. Corning (GLW) down 3.64% to $108.68 on absolutely massive 5.55 million shares—the highest volume we’ve ever seen. Ciena (CIEN) down 5.06% to $262.52 on 1.87 million shares. GE Vernova (GEV) down 6.49% to $729.59 on nearly 2 million shares. Teradyne (TER) down 4.35% on 3.1 million shares. These aren’t minor pullbacks. This is systematic institutional liquidation across the entire AI infrastructure sector.
The only survivor? Lumentum (LITE) up 4.51% to $454.74 on 7.3 million shares. But even that needs context—LITE was already volatile, and one stock rallying while everything else burns doesn’t make it safe. This isn’t sector rotation. This isn’t profit-taking. This is institutions heading for the exits across the board. When your ‘gold standard’ stocks all drop 3-6% on the heaviest volume you’ve ever seen, you don’t make excuses. You figure out what changed and what it means.
Let’s break down the carnage, understand what’s happening, and figure out what systematic income traders do next. Because when core holdings all break at once, your entire strategy is at risk.
The Disaster: GLW Reverses Wednesday’s Breakout
GLW (Corning) – Down 3.64%
Down 3.64% to $108.68 on 5,546,003 shares. Read that volume again: 5.55 MILLION shares. This is by far the highest volume we’ve seen in GLW through this entire move. Wednesday we called it ‘the gold standard’ after it broke through $115 on 1.64 million shares. Today it gave back that breakout and then some, falling below $109 on more than 3X Wednesday’s volume.
This is institutional distribution, period. When a stock drops 3.64% on 5.5 million shares the day after breaking out, institutions are telling you something changed. Either: (1) Broader market selloff dragging everything down, (2) AI infrastructure spending concerns emerging, (3) Valuation catching up—59 P/E isn’t cheap even for quality, or (4) Profit-taking after the run from $100 to $115.
For collar traders, this is painful but manageable if you established positions with proper strikes. If you bought GLW at $108 and sold $115 calls, your calls are probably worthless now but your stock is flat. If you bought at $112 with $120 calls, you’re underwater but protected by puts if struck correctly. The problem is anyone who chased Wednesday’s breakout is now sitting on immediate losses.
The key technical level now is $108. If GLW holds here and volume decreases, this was panic selling finding support. If it breaks $108 on continued heavy volume, we’re going back to $100-105. The 5.5 million share volume is the tell—this isn’t random. Something fundamental shifted.
CIEN Gets Crushed: -5.06%
CIEN (Ciena) – Down 5.06%
Down 5.06% to $262.52 on 1,867,747 shares. CIEN was holding steady through the week, consolidating around $280. Today it got absolutely destroyed, falling nearly $14 on heavy institutional volume. At 309 P/E, CIEN was always expensive, but institutions were willing to pay up for AI networking exposure. Not anymore.
The 1.87 million share volume is well above average. This isn’t light profit-taking—this is real selling. When networking equipment stocks break down alongside components (GLW) and power infrastructure (GEV), it suggests the entire AI infrastructure build-out thesis is being questioned. Either hyperscaler CapEx is slowing, or Wall Street is repricing growth expectations.
Support levels to watch: $260 (today’s close is already there), then $250, then $230. If CIEN breaks $250, the high P/E stocks are all at risk. The 309 P/E only works if growth continues accelerating. If growth slows or plateaus, this valuation collapses.
GEV Collapses: -6.49% on Record Volume
GEV (GE Vernova) – Down 6.49%
Down 6.49% to $729.59 on 1,978,996 shares. This is the biggest loser of the day by percentage. GEV makes power equipment—generators, transformers, infrastructure for data centers. We’ve been watching this as a secondary AI infrastructure play. At 41 P/E with actual profits and a $197 billion market cap, GEV was one of the more reasonably valued names in the sector.
The 6.49% drop on 2 million shares suggests institutions are questioning power infrastructure demand. If data center build-outs are slowing or getting pushed out, GEV loses one of its key growth drivers. The reasonable valuation (41 P/E) didn’t protect it—when the growth story breaks, even ‘cheap’ stocks get sold.
GEV is now below $730. It was trading around $780 just days ago. That’s a $50+ drop from recent highs. For a $197B company, that’s a massive move signaling real institutional concern.
TER: Semi Equipment Joins the Selloff
TER (Teradyne) – Down 4.35%
Semiconductor test equipment down 4.35% to $270.68 on absolutely massive 3,099,679 shares—the second-highest volume on today’s scan. TER makes the test systems that verify chips work before they ship. At 78 P/E, valuation was reasonable for semi equipment, but today’s 4.35% drop on 3.1 million shares shows no one is safe. When test equipment sells off on record volume alongside components and power infrastructure, the entire AI supply chain is being repriced.
The One Survivor: LITE Rallies While Everything Burns
LITE (Lumentum) – Up 4.51%
Up 4.51% to $454.74 on 7,290,650 shares—by far the highest volume on today’s scan. LITE is the only AI infrastructure name rallying while everything else gets destroyed. But context matters: LITE has been wildly volatile, trading at 139 P/E with massive swings. Yesterday it could have been down, today it’s up 4.5%. This isn’t a ‘quality’ stock—this is a momentum vehicle.
The 7.29 million share volume is extreme. Something specific is happening with LITE—either positive company news, short squeeze, or momentum funds rotating from other names into LITE as a ‘last man standing’ play. But one stock rallying while GLW, CIEN, GEV, and TER all crater doesn’t make LITE safe. It makes it an outlier that could reverse just as violently.
If you’re aggressive and understand the risk, LITE is tradeable with very wide collar strikes. But this is not a ‘hold forever’ systematic income play. This is high-risk, high-reward momentum trading.
Other Carnage
SMTC (Semtech) – Down 6.28%
Semiconductor company down 6.28% to $82.13 on 730K shares. At 270 P/E, SMTC was always expensive and risky. Today it got crushed along with everything else. High-valuation semis are getting destroyed.
ATI – Down 1.74%
Metal fabrication down 1.74% to $126.11 on 1.25 million shares. ATI is getting sold along with everything industrial. At 44 P/E, it’s not as stretched as tech names, but today nothing mattered.
ALGM – Down 0.91%
Even the garbage got hit. ALGM down 0.91% on 1.32 million shares. Negative P/E, no earnings, and still bouncing around on retail volume. Stay away.
The Only Green: Cruise Lines and Auto Parts
The only stocks up today? Carnival (CCL +0.80% on 7.8 million shares, CUK +0.50%), Royal Caribbean (RCL +1.73%), and Modine (MOD +0.85%). These have nothing to do with AI or tech. This is pure sector rotation—institutions selling tech and buying consumer cyclicals and industrials. When cruise lines outperform AI infrastructure by 6-8%, something fundamental has shifted.
What Changed: Four Possible Explanations
1. Broader Market Selloff: This could be a general risk-off move where growth stocks get hit regardless of fundamentals. The fact that cruise lines held up suggests this is tech-specific, not broad market panic.
2. AI CapEx Concerns: Maybe hyperscaler earnings showed or hinted at slowing infrastructure spending. If Microsoft, Amazon, Google, or Meta are pulling back CapEx, GLW, CIEN, and GEV all lose their key demand driver.
3. Valuation Correction: Stocks ran too far too fast. GLW went from $100 to $115 in weeks. CIEN trades at 309 P/E. At some point, valuations matter, and today might have been that day.
4. Profit-Taking After Big Runs: Simple answer—institutions booked profits after huge gains. GLW is still up significantly from $90 levels months ago. Today could just be a violent reset before the next leg higher.
What Systematic Traders Do Now
First, don’t panic. A 3-6% down day on your core holdings hurts, but if you’re running collars properly, your short calls provided some cushion and your protective puts limited damage. If you weren’t running collars and just owned stock outright, this is why we use options strategies.
Second, wait for clarity. Don’t add to positions today. Don’t try to ‘buy the dip’ when you don’t know if the dip is over. GLW at $108 might be a gift, or it might be heading to $100. CIEN at $262 might find support, or it might test $250. Volume was extreme today (5.5M on GLW, 3.1M on TER, 7.3M on LITE), which often marks short-term bottoms. But ‘often’ isn’t ‘always.’
Third, watch Friday’s tape closely. If stocks stabilize on lower volume, today was panic selling and the worst is over. If selling continues on heavy volume, this is the start of a bigger move down. The key is volume: decreasing volume with stabilizing prices = exhaustion. Sustained heavy volume with continued selling = more pain ahead.
Fourth, reassess every position. GLW is still the best AI infrastructure play, but after a 3.64% drop on 5.5 million shares, it’s no longer ‘buy automatically.’ CIEN at 309 P/E needs earnings to grow into that valuation—if growth slows, the P/E compresses violently. GEV showed that even reasonable valuations (41 P/E) don’t protect you when the growth story breaks.
Updated Rankings: Everything Goes to Watch List
After today’s carnage, we’re putting everything on the watch list. When your entire thesis gets questioned in one day, you don’t double down—you wait for clarity.
Watch List – Wait for Support and Lower Volume
Ticker
Status / Action
GLW
Down 3.64% to 108.68 on 5.55M shares. Gave back Wednesday’s breakout. Key support at 108. If it holds on lower volume Friday, panic is over. If it breaks 108, going to 100-105. DO NOT add new positions until it stabilizes.
CIEN
Down 5.06% to 262.52 on 1.87M shares. 309 P/E needs continued growth. Support at 260, then 250, then 230. Wait for stabilization.
GEV
Down 6.49% to 729.59 on 2M shares. Power infrastructure getting questioned. Even 41 P/E didn’t protect it. Watch.
TER
Down 4.35% on 3.1M shares. Semi equipment crushed. Wait for support.
High Risk – Momentum Only
LITE – Up 4.51% to 454.74 on 7.29M shares. Only survivor but wildly volatile at 139 P/E. This is momentum trading, not investment. Very wide strikes if you trade it at all.
Avoid Completely
Everything else. SMTC, ATI, ALGM, IMNM—all crushed or weak. Don’t try to catch falling knives.
Bottom Line: Wait for Clarity
Wednesday was a massacre. Every name we’ve been calling quality got destroyed on record volume. GLW down 3.64% on 5.55 million shares. CIEN down 5.06%. GEV down 6.49%. This wasn’t a minor pullback—this was systematic institutional liquidation across the entire AI infrastructure sector.
When everything breaks at once, you don’t fight it—you respect it. Don’t add to positions today. Don’t try to catch the bottom. Wait for Friday’s tape. If stocks stabilize on lower volume, today was panic and the worst is over. If selling continues on heavy volume, this is the start of a larger move down.
For collar traders, today is why we use options strategies. Your short calls provided some cushion. Your protective puts (if struck correctly) limited damage. But when core holdings all drop 3-6% in one day, even the best strategy takes a hit. The key now is discipline: wait for clarity, don’t chase, and only re-enter when support levels hold and volume decreases. This is how you survive market sell-offs without blowing up your account.
When Commodities Steal the Show from AI Infrastructure
Tuesday’s tape delivered a wake-up call for anyone who thought the commodity trade was dead. FormFactor (FORM) exploded 8.31%. Southern Copper (SCCO) up 7.28%. Ero Copper (ERO) up 7.18%. Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) up 5.74%. Century Aluminum (CENX) up 5.28%. This isn’t noise. This is systematic institutional accumulation of hard assets after last week’s brutal selloff created buying opportunities.
Meanwhile, the AI infrastructure darlings took a breather. Micron (MU) down 1.57% on 5.6 million shares—more distribution after Monday’s dead-cat bounce. The quality tech names consolidated: COHR up 3.33%, STX up 2.72%, but nothing like Monday’s explosive moves. And the garbage? Still bouncing weakly: FLNC up 2.85%, ALGM up 3.15%, AAOI up 3.83%—all on pathetic volume.
What’s really happening is healthy rotation. Fast money that chased AI infrastructure last week is taking profits and rotating into beaten-down commodities. This is exactly what you want to see in a healthy market. Let’s break down the real winners, the consolidators, and what it means for systematic income strategies.
The Commodity Comeback: Real Assets Getting Bid
FORM (FormFactor) – Up 8.31%
Semiconductor test and measurement equipment. Up 8.31% to $77.19 on only 184K shares. This is interesting because it’s not a commodity play—it’s semi equipment with a 147 P/E. But the move suggests money rotating from pure-play semis (like MU) into picks-and-shovels equipment providers. Light volume is concerning, but the 8% move gets attention.
SCCO (Southern Copper) – Up 7.28%
The elephant in the room. Up 7.28% to $206.84 on 291K shares. This is a $169 billion market cap copper miner with a 44 P/E—not cheap, but trading at growth multiples because copper is critical for electrification and AI infrastructure. Last week SCCO got crushed along with all commodity names. Today’s 7% move on decent volume suggests institutions are coming back in.
Here’s the key: SCCO has real assets, real production, and actual cash flow. Unlike speculative garbage like BE or FLNC that burn cash, SCCO makes money from every pound of copper they mine. When copper prices stabilize or rise, SCCO benefits directly. The 44 P/E reflects expectations that copper demand will stay strong due to electrification, EV charging infrastructure, and data center power needs.
ERO (Ero Copper) – Up 7.18%
Canadian copper miner up 7.18% to $36.65 on 336K shares. This stock got destroyed last week, down over 5% as copper names sold off. Today’s rally on decent volume suggests the selling exhausted itself and buyers are stepping in. At 28 P/E, ERO is cheaper than SCCO but smaller ($3.8B market cap). Higher risk, higher potential reward.
FCX (Freeport-McMoRan) – Up 5.74%
The monster. Up 5.74% to $64.25 on 3.34 million shares—by far the highest volume copper name today. This is institutional accumulation, period. FCX is the largest publicly traded copper miner in the world with operations in Indonesia, Chile, and the US. At 42 P/E with a $92B market cap, this is a liquid, investable way to play copper without going to small-cap miners.
The 3.3 million share volume is the tell. When a $92 billion company trades over 3 million shares on an up day, institutions are buying size. This isn’t retail speculation. This is portfolio managers saying ‘copper got oversold, we’re adding exposure.’
CENX (Century Aluminum) – Up 5.28%
Aluminum producer up 5.28% to $49.82 on 429K shares. Aluminum is needed for EV bodies, aircraft, infrastructure, and packaging. At 62 P/E, valuation reflects strong aluminum demand. This got destroyed with other commodity names last week and is bouncing as institutions recognize the oversold condition.
Tech Consolidation: Quality Holding, Garbage Still Bouncing
COHR (Coherent) – Up 3.33%
Optical components and scientific instruments. Up 3.33% to $229.84 on 946K shares. This is the highest volume tech name on today’s scan. COHR continues to grind higher on Monday’s 4.46% move. At 331 P/E, valuation is stretched, but the company is profitable with technology moats. Heavy volume suggests institutions are still accumulating despite the rich valuation.
STX (Seagate) – Up 2.72%
Hard drive storage. Up 2.72% to $444.73 on 778K shares. Following Monday’s 4.64% surge with another solid gain. This is healthy consolidation—price holding gains, decent volume, no selling pressure. At 50 P/E with actual profits, STX remains a core holding for AI storage exposure. Any 3-5% pullback is a collar entry opportunity.
VRT (Vertiv) – Up 0.67%
Data center power and cooling. Barely up 0.67% to $191.29 on 492K shares. This should be rallying with other AI infrastructure names but is lagging badly. At 72 P/E, valuation is stretched and the stock has already run hard. The weak performance today suggests VRT is exhausted. Wait for a 10-15% pullback before considering.
The Problem Children: MU Distribution Continues
MU (Micron) – Down 1.57%
This is the story of the day. Down 1.57% to $430.92 on 5.6 million shares. Remember: Friday MU dropped 4.8% on 50 million shares. Monday it bounced 2.54% on 7 million shares. Today it’s down again on 5.6 million shares. This is classic distribution—institutions are systematically selling into any strength.
At 41 P/E, MU trades at a premium valuation while memory pricing is showing signs of weakness. The AI narrative drove MU to highs, but fundamentals don’t support current levels. Institutions know this, and they’re exiting. Don’t fight this tape. Let MU fall another 10-15%, let it form a real base, then reassess. Right now this is a falling knife.
INTC (Intel) – Up 3.28%
Bouncing 3.28% on massive 17.5 million shares. But let’s be honest: Intel has a negative P/E ratio. The company is losing money. This bounce on huge volume is retail and momentum traders gambling on a turnaround story. Until Intel shows actual profits and competitive products, this is speculation. Avoid for systematic income strategies.
Garbage Bounces Continue: Still Not Recoveries
AAOI, ALGM, FLNC – All Up 2.85% to 3.83%
Applied Optoelectronics (AAOI) up 3.83% on 731K shares. Allegro Microsystems (ALGM) up 3.15% on 229K shares. Fluence Energy (FLNC) up 2.85% on 603K shares. All three have negative P/E ratios. All three are bouncing on weak volume. All three remain uninvestable for systematic income.
Here’s the test: if these stocks were real recoveries, they’d be rallying on heavy institutional volume like FCX (3.3M shares) or COHR (946K shares). Instead they’re bouncing on retail-level volume. These are dead-cat bounces extended by momentum and short squeezes. When the bounces end, they’ll resume falling because there are no earnings floors to catch them.
Interesting Wildcards: Biotech and Cruise Lines
ARWR (Arrowhead Pharma) – Up 3.47%
Biotechnology with negative P/E. Up 3.47% on 192K shares. This is pure speculation on drug pipeline. Negative earnings, thin volume, binary risk on clinical trials. Not a collar candidate, but worth watching if you’re aggressive and understand biotech.
DNLI (Denali Therapeutics) – Up 3.28%
Another biotech with negative P/E. Up 3.28% on 150K shares. Same story as ARWR: drug pipeline speculation with binary clinical trial risk. Avoid unless you’re specifically looking for high-risk biotech exposure.
RCL (Royal Caribbean) – Up 0.36%
Cruise line barely up 0.36% on thin volume (121K shares). This has nothing to do with AI or commodities—it’s consumer cyclical exposure. At 22 P/E with profits, RCL is higher quality than biotech, but cruise lines are capital-intensive and economically sensitive. Not a systematic income play.
What This Rotation Means: Healthy or Warning Sign?
Tuesday’s action is actually bullish for the overall market health. When you see rotation from recent winners (AI infrastructure) into beaten-down sectors (commodities), it suggests capital is staying in the market rather than going to cash. Fast money isn’t selling tech to go defensive—it’s rotating into commodities that got oversold.
The copper rally makes fundamental sense. Copper got destroyed last week on profit-taking after a huge run, but the underlying demand drivers haven’t changed. Electrification needs copper. EV charging stations need copper. Data centers need copper for power distribution. AI infrastructure needs copper everywhere. When FCX drops 10% in a week on these unchanged fundamentals, smart money steps in.
For systematic traders, the question is whether to chase commodities or stick with tech quality. The answer: neither. Don’t chase copper after a 5-7% day. Don’t abandon quality tech names like STX and COHR that are consolidating healthily. The best move is patience. Wait for copper to consolidate these gains, then consider adding commodity exposure. And keep accumulating quality tech on 2-3% pullbacks.
The one clear warning sign is Micron’s continued distribution. When a major semiconductor stock shows three straight days of selling pressure (Friday 50M shares down, Monday 7M shares up on weak bounce, Tuesday 5.6M shares down again), institutions are telling you something. MU’s memory business faces pricing pressure, and at 41 P/E there’s no margin for error. Let this one go. There will be better entry points at lower levels.
Updated Rankings: Adding Commodity Exposure
Tier 1: Core Tech Holdings (Unchanged)
GLW, WDC, STX, CIEN – These remain your core AI infrastructure plays. Wait for 2-3% pullbacks to add or sell puts. STX up 2.72% today is healthy consolidation after Monday’s big move. These stocks have earnings support and aren’t going anywhere.
Tier 2A: Commodity Plays (New Additions – Watch for Consolidation)
Ticker
Status / Action
FCX
Up 5.74% on 3.3M shares. Massive institutional accumulation. Wait for 3-5% pullback to enter.
SCCO
Up 7.28%. Large-cap copper with 44 P/E. Let it consolidate 5% before considering.
CENX
Up 5.28%. Aluminum play. 62 P/E. Real assets but cyclical. Watch for pullback.
Tier 2B: Tech Consolidators (Wait for Entry Points)
COHR – Up 3.33% on 946K shares. 331 P/E stretched but institutions buying. Only for aggressive traders.LITE – Not on today’s scan but remains extended. Wait for 5-10% consolidation.TTM – Not on today’s scan. Consolidating nicely. Watch for re-entry around 95-98.
Avoid / Wait List
MU – Continued distribution. Down 1.57% on 5.6M shares. Let it fall and base.INTC – Negative P/E, losing money. Speculation, not investment.AAOI, ALGM, FLNC – All negative P/E, weak bounces on low volume. Still garbage.VRT – Up 0.67% but lagging. 72 P/E stretched. Wait for 10-15% pullback.FORM – Up 8.31% but only 184K shares. Thin volume makes this suspect.ERO – Up 7.18% but small-cap ($3.8B). Higher risk than FCX. Wait for consolidation.
Bottom Line: Rotation Is Healthy, Don’t Chase
Tuesday’s rotation from AI infrastructure into commodities is healthy market behavior. Fast money is rotating, not fleeing. Copper names rallied on real institutional volume (FCX 3.3M shares) after getting oversold last week. Quality tech names like STX and COHR consolidated gains healthily. And garbage like AAOI, ALGM, and FLNC continues bouncing weakly on retail volume.
For systematic income traders, the playbook is simple: don’t chase today’s 5-7% copper moves. Wait for consolidation. Keep your core tech holdings (GLW, WDC, STX, CIEN) and add on 2-3% pullbacks. Consider adding commodity exposure (FCX, SCCO) but only after they digest today’s gains. And absolutely avoid the distribution stocks (MU) and the negative-earnings garbage (AAOI, ALGM, FLNC, INTC).
The one clear red flag is Micron’s ongoing distribution. Three days of selling pressure tells you institutions are exiting. Don’t fight that tape. Otherwise, this is a healthy, rotational market where both AI infrastructure and commodities have roles to play. Focus on quality in both sectors, wait for entry points, and let the market come to you. That’s how you generate systematic income without chasing momentum or catching falling knives.
The Great Mid-Cap Rotation: What Worked, What Died, and What Comes Next
Executive Summary: A Week of Violent Rotation
This week delivered a masterclass in momentum exhaustion and sector rotation. We watched AI infrastructure names explode higher early in the week, then give back gains as fast money took profits. We saw energy transition darlings like Bloom Energy get absolutely destroyed. We witnessed commodity plays—copper, uranium, gold—peak and reverse hard. And by Friday, the market was making it crystal clear which stocks have real earnings support and which ones were riding pure speculation.
The final Friday scan tells the story in one chart: AAOI up 10.2% on massive volume while Micron cratered 4.8% on 50 million shares. LITE up 2.7% while Bloom Energy, Fluence, and the entire negative-earnings cohort got pummeled. This isn’t random. This is the market separating companies with actual business models from companies trading on narratives and hope. For systematic income traders, this week revealed exactly where to focus and what to avoid. Let’s break it down day by day, then synthesize what it means for the weeks ahead.
Monday-Tuesday: The Explosive Rally in AI Infrastructure
The week started with a violent upside move in mid-cap AI infrastructure and commodity names. Corning (GLW), Ciena (CIEN), Lumentum (LITE), Celestica (CLS), and a parade of mining stocks all ripped 20-50% in what looked like a genuine breakout. The catalyst? A convergence of factors: AI CapEx spending announcements from hyperscalers, China stimulus whispers driving hard asset reflation, space/defense hype, and—most importantly—massive short covering in heavily shorted names.
This wasn’t vapor. Companies like GLW and CIEN were reporting real order flow, growing backlogs, and actual earnings beats tied to hyperscaler demand. The fiber optics, optical networking, and AI server manufacturing plays all had legitimate fundamental support. Even the commodity plays—Cameco (CCJ) in uranium, Iamgold (IAG) in gold, Century Aluminum (CENX)—had reasonable theses tied to nuclear renaissance and infrastructure spending.
But buried in the rally were warning signs. Stocks with negative P/E ratios—Bloom Energy (BE), Applied Digital (APLD), Hut 8 (HUT)—were ripping just as hard as quality names. When garbage moves with gold, it’s a sign the rally is liquidity-driven, not fundamentally selective. And that’s exactly what started unraveling mid-week.
Wednesday-Thursday: Reality Checks and Profit-Taking
By mid-week, the music started to stop. Bloom Energy (BE) got crushed 7.2%. Iamgold (IAG) dropped 6.4%. Hut 8 (HUT) fell 5.7%. Applied Digital (APLD) lost 5.3%. The pattern was unmistakable: stocks with no earnings, negative cash flow, and narrative-dependent valuations were getting destroyed. Meanwhile, quality names were experiencing normal profit-taking but holding up relatively well.
The divergence revealed exactly what we’ve been saying: there’s a fundamental difference between companies with real earnings support and companies riding pure momentum. Ciena (CIEN) pulled back 3.1% but held above key support levels. Seagate (STX) and Western Digital (WDC) were nearly flat. These stocks have actual profits, institutional backing, and durable demand drivers. When they correct, they find buyers. When speculative garbage corrects, it keeps falling because there’s no fundamental floor to catch it.
The commodity names—copper miners (ERO, SCCO) and uranium (CCJ)—also pulled back hard, down 3-6%. But these are different from the energy transition garbage. Miners have real assets, real production, and real cash flow tied to commodity prices. When copper or uranium prices stabilize, the stocks find support. They’re cyclical and volatile, but they’re not going to zero. The key distinction: commodity exposure is manageable risk; zero-earnings speculation is unmanageable risk.
Thursday also brought a critical insight: the market was rotating out of commodity speculation and into manufacturing reality. While copper miners bled, electronic component manufacturers rallied. TTM Technologies jumped 6% on real PCB demand for AI servers. Corning held its gains on fiber and glass substrate orders. The message was clear: Wall Street is moving from ‘copper will be needed someday’ to ‘these companies are filling purchase orders right now.’
Friday: The Final Shakeout and Weekend Positioning
Friday’s scan revealed the week’s ultimate winners and losers. Applied Optoelectronics (AAOI) exploded 10.2% on nearly 12 million shares—a company that makes optical components for data centers finally getting recognized for having real revenue growth. Lumentum (LITE) up 2.7% on 7 million shares, continuing its steady climb. TTM Technologies up 1.78% on 4.3 million shares, consolidating Thursday’s 6% surge.
But the real story was the bloodbath in former high-flyers. Micron Technology (MU) absolutely cratered 4.8% on a staggering 50 million shares—the highest volume name on the entire scan. This wasn’t just profit-taking. This was institutional distribution. MU trades at 39 P/E with slowing memory pricing, and the market is finally waking up to the fact that not every semiconductor stock deserves AI-level valuations.
The negative-earnings cohort continued to suffer. Bloom Energy (BE) down another 3.3% on 11.4 million shares. Fluence Energy (FLNC) down 2.5% on 7.3 million shares. Allegro Microsystems (ALGM) down 2.8% on 5.2 million shares. Viasat (VSAT) down 2.3%. Every single one of these companies has a negative P/E ratio. Every single one burns cash. And every single one is getting systematically destroyed as momentum fades and fundamentals matter again.
Meanwhile, the quality names showed resilience. Corning (GLW) up 0.24% on 13.4 million shares—massive institutional volume holding the stock steady. Ciena (CIEN) down only 0.68% on 3.2 million shares, barely a scratch after a huge run. Coherent (COHR) down 1.7%—high valuation (306 P/E) but profitable with tech moats. These are the names that survive rotation because they have earnings floors and institutional support.
Five Key Themes from This Week
1. Liquidity-Driven Rallies End When Liquidity Tightens
Monday and Tuesday’s explosive rally was driven by rates stabilizing, liquidity loosening, massive short interest getting squeezed, and momentum funds returning. When those forces converge, high-beta mid-caps rip together regardless of individual fundamentals. But by Wednesday, liquidity conditions shifted—fast money started booking profits, momentum funds rotated, and suddenly fundamentals mattered. The result? Quality names corrected 3-5%. Garbage names fell 20-40% from highs.
2. Negative-Earnings Companies Are Death Traps in Rotation
Every single stock with a negative P/E ratio got destroyed this week. BE, FLNC, HUT, APLD, ALGM, VSAT—all down 20-40% from weekly highs. These companies don’t have earnings floors to catch them when momentum reverses. They burn cash, depend on narratives (hydrogen! solar! crypto! AI!), and evaporate when those narratives cool. For income traders, the lesson is brutal but simple: rich IV on unprofitable companies is a trap, not an opportunity.
3. Commodity Plays Need Price Stability to Work
Copper miners (ERO, SCCO) and uranium plays (CCJ) ran hard early week, then reversed violently. The thesis—electrification needs copper, AI needs nuclear power—isn’t wrong. But commodity stocks are leveraged bets on commodity prices. When copper or uranium prices stabilize or pull back, the stocks get hit twice: once on the commodity, once on sentiment. Unlike unprofitable tech, these companies have real assets and cash flow, so they find floors. But they’re not collar-friendly until commodity prices stabilize.
The biggest insight of the week: the market is rotating from ‘this commodity will be needed someday’ to ‘this company is filling purchase orders right now.’ Electronic component manufacturers—TTM (PCBs), GLW (fiber/glass), AAOI (optical components), LITE (optical networking)—all rallied or held steady because they have actual order books from hyperscalers. These aren’t speculative bets. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta are writing checks. That’s investable.
5. High Volume on Down Days Means Distribution, Not Opportunity
Micron (MU) dropping 4.8% on 50 million shares is institutional distribution, period. BE down on 11.4 million shares, COHR down on 7 million shares, FLNC down on 7.3 million shares—when stocks fall on massive volume, it’s not ‘cheap shares for smart buyers.’ It’s institutions heading for the exits. High volume on up days is accumulation. High volume on down days is distribution. Know the difference.
The Survivors: What Held Up and Why
Not every stock got destroyed this week. The names that survived and even thrived share common characteristics: actual earnings, institutional support, liquid options markets, and durable demand drivers. These are the stocks systematic traders should focus on for income strategies.
Ticker
Week Performance
Why It Matters
GLW
Strong +4%
Best collar candidate. 58 P/E with real earnings. Fiber optics, specialty glass for data centers. Boring company, exciting demand. Friday held steady on 13.4M shares.
LITE
Up +15%+
Optical networking for AI clusters. 262 P/E reflects explosive growth. Friday up 2.7% on 7M shares. Use wider collars due to volatility but trend is intact.
TTM
Up +7-8%
PCB manufacturer with explosive AI server demand. Thursday +6%, Friday +1.8% on 4.3M shares. 78 P/E but growing fast. Let it consolidate then add.
CIEN
Slight pullback
AI networking equipment. Friday down 0.68% on 3.2M shares after huge run. Normal profit-taking. Support held at 230. Still Tier 1 collar candidate.
WDC/STX
Flat to slight down
Hard drive storage for AI data. Minor weakness is consolidation. 28-50 P/E with actual profits. Institutional backing. Perfect for selling puts on dips.
AAOI
Explosive +10%
Optical components for data centers. Friday +10.2% on 12M shares. Negative P/E is concerning but revenue growing. High risk, high reward. Watch for follow-through.
The Casualties: What Died and Why It Won’t Come Back
Some stocks didn’t just pull back this week—they broke. These names revealed fundamental problems that momentum was masking. For systematic traders, these are cautionary tales about what happens when you confuse liquidity-driven rallies with investable business models.
Ticker
Week Performance
The Autopsy
BE
Down 20%+
Hydrogen fuel cells. Negative P/E, burns cash. Wed -7.2%, Fri -3.3% on 11.4M shares. Momentum died, no earnings floor caught it. Dead money.
FLNC
Down 15%+
Battery storage. Negative P/E. Friday -2.5% on 7.3M shares. Government subsidy dependent. If energy transition hype fades, this follows BE lower.
HUT
Down 10%+
Bitcoin miner pretending to be AI play. Wed -5.7%, then continued bleeding. When crypto sentiment turns, this collapses further. Pure speculation.
MU
Friday -4.8%
Huge institutional distribution. 50M shares on down day. Memory pricing slowing. 39 P/E doesn’t justify slowing growth. This is distribution, not opportunity.
ALGM
Down 8%+
Semiconductor with negative P/E. Friday -2.8% on 5.2M shares. Losing money in hot semi market signals terrible competitive position. Avoid.
What Comes Next: Strategic Guidance for the Weeks Ahead
This week taught us exactly where the opportunities and dangers lie. The market has made its preferences clear: companies with actual earnings and order books survive rotation. Companies that burn cash and depend on narratives get destroyed. For systematic income traders running collars, wheel strategies, or put-selling programs, here’s what matters going forward.
Near-Term Setup (Next 2-4 Weeks)
We’re entering a critical earnings period. GOOGL reports February 4, LLY reports February 11, and NVDA reports February 25. These are the companies that will determine whether AI infrastructure spending is accelerating, stable, or peaking. Until we get through this earnings gauntlet, volatility will remain elevated and momentum will be choppy.
For collar traders, the best strategy is patience. Let earnings pass, let IV crush happen, then establish positions 2-3 weeks after reports. The sweet spot is when stocks have found support post-earnings but IV is still slightly elevated. Don’t sell puts into earnings unless you’re deliberately trading the event. Wait for the dust to settle.
Focus on the Tier 1 survivors: GLW, CIEN, WDC, STX, LITE. These stocks held up during rotation, have institutional support, and offer liquid option markets. Any 3-5% pullback in these names is an entry opportunity, not a reason to panic. Use wider strikes on LITE due to volatility. Tighter collars work fine on GLW, WDC, and STX.
Medium-Term Themes (Next 2-3 Months)
The rotation from commodity speculation to manufacturing reality will continue. Copper and uranium may find floors if commodity prices stabilize, but they’re not systematic income candidates yet. Wait for 30-40% corrections from highs, then reassess. CCJ at $90-100 would be interesting. ERO needs copper prices to stop falling.
The electronic component manufacturers (TTM, GLW, AAOI, LITE) will continue to benefit from hyperscaler CapEx. This isn’t a one-quarter story. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta have multi-year build-out plans for AI infrastructure. These companies are filling orders that were placed 6-12 months ago and have visibility into the next 12-18 months. As long as hyperscaler spending continues—and all indications suggest it will—these stocks have fundamental support.
Watch for broadening participation. If the rally was healthy, we’d see money rotate from semiconductors into industrial automation, into power infrastructure, into cooling systems. If participation narrows and only a handful of names keep working, that’s a warning sign that the AI infrastructure thesis is losing steam. So far, participation is actually broadening—TTM, AAOI, and other second-tier plays are finally getting recognized.
What to Avoid Completely
Any stock with a negative P/E ratio should be off-limits for systematic income strategies. BE, FLNC, HUT, APLD, ALGM, VSAT—every single one got destroyed this week. Rich IV on these names looks tempting until the stock gaps down 20% and you’re stuck owning unprofitable businesses with no path to profitability. The premiums aren’t worth the risk.
Also avoid stocks showing massive distribution volume. Micron’s 50 million share down day on Friday is a giant red flag. When institutions are selling in size, you don’t want to be the one catching the knife. Let MU find a floor, let it consolidate for weeks, then reassess. Same applies to any stock showing repeated high-volume down days.
Finally, avoid parabolic movers immediately after big runs. When stocks go vertical—up 50% in two weeks—they need time to consolidate. That consolidation can be sideways (best case), a 20-30% pullback (normal case), or a complete reversal (worst case). Don’t chase. Let the move complete, let the stock digest gains, then enter on weakness if fundamentals support it.
Final Rankings: Your Systematic Income Watchlist
Based on everything we saw this week, here’s the definitive ranking for systematic income strategies. These are collar-friendly stocks with liquid options, institutional support, and earnings floors.
Tier 1: Core Holdings (Sell Puts on Any 3-5% Weakness)
1. GLW (Corning) – The gold standard. 58 P/E with real earnings. Deep options. Institutional quality. Any pullback is a gift.2. WDC (Western Digital) – Storage for AI data. 28 P/E with profits. Minor weakness is consolidation. Perfect for puts.3. STX (Seagate) – Same story as WDC. 50 P/E, actual earnings, institutional backing.4. CIEN (Ciena) – AI networking. 296 P/E reflects growth. Support held at 230. Still Tier 1 despite valuation.
5. LITE (Lumentum) – Optical networking. 262 P/E, volatile but profitable. Use wider strikes.6. TTM (TTM Tech) – PCB manufacturing. 78 P/E, explosive growth. Let it consolidate from +6% move.7. COHR (Coherent) – 306 P/E stretched but profitable with moats. Only for aggressive traders.8. AAOI (Applied Opto) – Just broke out +10%. Negative P/E is concerning. Watch for follow-through before entering.
Tier 3: Watch List (Wait for Deeper Corrections)
9. CCJ (Cameco) – Down 3.9% this week after huge run. 148 P/E needs perfect execution. Wait for 25-30% off highs.10. CVX (Chevron) – Reported earnings Friday. 4.4% yield provides cushion. Wait for post-earnings settle.Copper miners (ERO, SCCO) – Real assets but need commodity price stability. Not ready yet.
The Avoid List (Do Not Touch)
BE (Bloom Energy) – Negative P/E, burns cash, down 20%+ this weekFLNC (Fluence) – Same story, government subsidy dependentHUT (Hut 8) – Bitcoin miner, pure speculationMU (Micron) – Massive distribution, 50M share down dayALGM (Allegro) – Losing money in hot marketVSAT (Viasat) – Negative P/E, thin volumeAPLD (Applied Digital) – Data center leasing with massive debt
Conclusion: Stick to What Works, Avoid What Doesn’t
This week delivered a masterclass in what happens when momentum meets fundamentals. The names with real earnings and institutional support—GLW, CIEN, WDC, STX, LITE, TTM—survived rotation and remain investable. The names that burn cash and depend on narratives—BE, FLNC, HUT, ALGM—got systematically destroyed and aren’t coming back anytime soon.
For systematic income traders, the lesson is brutally simple: you cannot generate repeatable income from unprofitable companies. Rich IV is a trap when there’s no earnings floor to catch the stock when momentum reverses. Stick to boring companies in exciting trends. Sell puts on quality names when they pull back 3-5%. Use collars to protect profits while generating income. And never, ever confuse a liquidity-driven rally with an investable business model.
The AI infrastructure build-out is real. Hyperscalers are spending billions on data centers, networking equipment, storage, and components. But within that theme, there’s a massive difference between companies filling purchase orders (GLW, TTM, LITE) and companies hoping to someday maybe get a contract (BE, FLNC, APLD). Focus on the former. Avoid the latter.
Next week brings critical earnings from GOOGL (Feb 4) and the setup into LLY (Feb 11) and NVDA (Feb 25). Use this time to build watchlists, identify entry points, and prepare for post-earnings opportunities. The stocks that survive the next earnings cycle will be the ones you want to own for the rest of 2026. Focus on quality, follow the earnings, and let the market separate wheat from chaff. That’s how you generate systematic income without blowing up your account.
Why Electronic Components Are Ripping While Commodities Bleed
Today’s tape is showing you exactly what rotation looks like in real time. While copper miners and uranium names are getting crushed—ERO down 5.7%, CCJ off 3.9%—the electronic component plays are absolutely ripping. TTM Technologies up 6%, Corning up 4.1%. This isn’t random noise. This is smart money rotating out of commodities that ran too far too fast and into the picks-and-shovels companies that actually manufacture the components for AI infrastructure.
What makes this particularly important for systematic traders is that it’s revealing where the real earnings power sits. The commodity plays were narrative-driven momentum trades. The electronic component manufacturers have actual order books, real margins, and backlog visibility. Let’s break down what’s happening and which names are telling you where to focus versus which ones are screaming ‘stay away.’
The Clear Winners: Electronic Components and PCB Manufacturers
TTM Technologies (TTM) – Up 5.97%
This is the star of today’s show. TTM makes printed circuit boards—the actual physical boards that all semiconductor chips sit on. This stock trades at 81 P/E, which sounds expensive until you realize the company has explosive growth tied to AI server demand. Volume today: 282,801—well above average. This is institutional accumulation, not retail gambling.
What makes TTM critical: hyperscalers need PCBs for every AI server they build. Nvidia sells the chips, but TTM provides the boards those chips mount on. This is true picks-and-shovels exposure with actual manufacturing capacity and customer commitments. The 6% move today isn’t speculation—it’s a revaluation as the market figures out that PCB demand is going to be insane for years.
Corning (GLW) – Up 4.09%
We’ve talked about GLW before—it remains the gold standard for collar-friendly AI infrastructure plays. Today’s 4% move on 2.6 million shares is continuation of a steady, institutional-quality uptrend. GLW makes optical fiber, specialty glass for data centers, and glass substrates for displays. P/E of 58 with real earnings and a decades-long moat in specialty glass manufacturing.
Why GLW keeps working: boring company, exciting secular demand. AI data centers need fiber. Liquid cooling systems need specialty glass. Advanced packaging needs glass substrates. GLW has pricing power, long-term contracts, and the capacity to deliver. This is exactly what you want to own or sell puts against—predictable, profitable, and positioned in front of multi-year demand.
The Losers: Commodity Plays Hit Reality
ERO (Ero Copper) – Down 5.67%
Copper miners are getting destroyed today. ERO down 5.7% on heavy volume (575,033 shares) tells you that the copper reflation trade is cooling off. This stock trades at 27 P/E, which is actually reasonable for a miner, but the problem is copper prices themselves. When commodity prices pull back, miners get hit twice: once on the commodity, once on sentiment.
The narrative was that AI data centers and electrification would drive massive copper demand. That’s still probably true long-term, but short-term the trade got crowded and fast money is taking profits. Copper miners have real assets and real cash flow, so they’re not going to zero, but they’re also not collar-friendly right now because commodity volatility kills systematic income strategies.
CCJ (Cameco) – Down 3.91%
Uranium names are giving back gains. CCJ down 3.9% on 1.1 million shares after a monster run. This stock trades at 148 P/E—pure growth expectations priced in. The thesis was nuclear renaissance, data center power demand, and government support. All of that is still valid, but after a parabolic move, profit-taking is natural.
CCJ is a quality company with real uranium production and long-term contracts. Unlike garbage speculative names, this has fundamental support. But at 148 P/E, there’s no margin for error. If uranium prices stabilize or pull back, the stock has a long way to fall before it looks cheap again. This is a ‘watch and wait’ situation—not a sell-puts-into-weakness opportunity yet.
HUT (Hut 8) – Down 1.87%
Bitcoin miner trying to be an AI play. Down 1.87% which is actually showing relative strength compared to the beating other speculative names took yesterday. But let’s be clear: this remains pure speculation with a 32 P/E on erratic earnings. When crypto sentiment fades or AI hype cools, this goes much lower. Not collar material.
Mixed Signals: Tech Hardware Holding Firm
WDC (Western Digital) – Down 1.38%
Hard drive maker for AI storage. Down slightly at 1.4% on huge volume (3.86 million shares). This is not weakness—this is consolidation after a strong run. WDC trades at 28 P/E with actual profits and growing demand for high-capacity storage in data centers. AI models need somewhere to store training data. WDC provides that.
For systematic traders, WDC remains one of the best risk-reward setups. Slight pullbacks on high volume are buy-the-dip opportunities, not reasons to panic. The company has real earnings, institutional support, and secular demand. This is exactly the kind of name where you wait for 2-3% weakness, then sell puts or establish collar positions.
STX (Seagate Technology) – Down 0.64%
Nearly flat on the day at down 0.64%. Same story as WDC—hard drive demand for AI storage is real, the stock has earnings support (50 P/E), and institutions are holding positions. Minor weakness is noise, not a reason to abandon the thesis. Both STX and WDC belong in the ‘quality tech holding up well’ category.
The Garbage Bin: Avoid These Entirely
BE (Bloom Energy) – Up 0.97%
Tiny bounce today after getting crushed 7.2% yesterday. This stock has no earnings (negative P/E), burns cash, and depends entirely on hydrogen fuel cell hype and government subsidies. The 1% move today is dead-cat-bounce garbage. When momentum stocks with no earnings start bouncing, it’s usually retail trying to catch a falling knife. Stay away.
ALGM (Allegro Microsystems) – Down 2.53%
Semiconductor company with negative P/E. Down 2.5% today on thin volume (395,995 shares). This is a company losing money in a hot semiconductor market—that tells you everything you need to know about their competitive position. When the easy money dries up, these unprofitable semi companies get destroyed. Not collar material.
GFS (GlobalFoundries) – Down 1.26%
Contract chip manufacturer with negative P/E. Volume is incredibly thin (142,165 shares). This is a government-subsidized foundry that can’t make money despite massive semiconductor demand. The business model doesn’t work without subsidies, and thin volume means you’ll get terrible option pricing. Hard pass.
What This Sector Divergence Means
Today’s action is revealing a critical shift: the market is moving from commodity speculation to manufacturing reality. Copper and uranium ran on narrative-driven momentum—’electrification needs copper’ and ‘AI needs nuclear power.’ Those narratives aren’t wrong, but they got ahead of fundamentals. Now we’re seeing profit-taking and rotation.
Where’s the money going? Into the companies that actually make the physical components for AI infrastructure. TTM makes the circuit boards. GLW makes the fiber and glass. WDC and STX make the storage. These companies have order books, backlog visibility, and pricing power. They’re not trading on hope—they’re trading on actual purchase orders from hyperscalers.
The divergence also exposes which stocks have real earnings support versus which ones were pure momentum. Stocks with negative P/E ratios (BE, ALGM, GFS) are struggling or bouncing weakly. Stocks with actual profits and reasonable valuations (GLW, WDC, STX, TTM) are either rallying or holding steady. This is exactly what you want to see if you’re focused on quality over speculation.
Ranking Today’s Movers by Quality and Opportunity
Tier 1: Buy the Dip / Establish Positions
Ticker
Rationale
GLW
Up 4.1% on institutional volume. Boring company, exciting demand. Perfect collar DNA. Any pullback is a gift.
TTM
Up 6% on real demand. PCB manufacturing for AI servers. High P/E but explosive growth. Watch for consolidation to add.
WDC
Down 1.4% is consolidation, not weakness. Storage demand for AI is real. 28 P/E with profits. Sell puts on weakness.
STX
Nearly flat. Same story as WDC. Quality tech with earnings support. Minor pullbacks are entry points.
Tier 2: Watch List – Wait for Better Setup
Ticker
Rationale
CCJ
Down 3.9% after big run. Quality company but 148 P/E needs perfect execution. Wait for deeper pullback to 25-30% off highs.
ERO
Down 5.7%. Copper miner with real assets but commodity exposure cuts both ways. Wait for copper prices to stabilize.
SCCO
Down 3%. Large-cap copper miner with 43 P/E. Better quality than ERO but same commodity risk. Wait for sector to find floor.
ACMR
Up 1.7%. Semi equipment with 33 P/E. Thin volume (87,667 shares). Options will be expensive. Only for patient traders.
Tier 3: Avoid Completely
Ticker
Rationale
BE
Up 1% after down 7.2% yesterday. No earnings, burns cash, pure speculation. Dead cat bounce.
HUT
Down 1.9%. Bitcoin miner pretending to be AI play. When crypto sentiment turns, this collapses.
ALGM
Down 2.5%. Negative P/E. Losing money in a hot semi market means terrible competitive position.
GFS
Down 1.3%. Negative P/E, thin volume (142K shares). Government-subsidized foundry that can’t make money.
VSAT
Up 1.7%. Satellite communications with negative P/E. Thin volume (84,589 shares). Avoid.
Bottom Line: Follow the Earnings, Not the Narrative
Today’s divergence is teaching a critical lesson: narratives drive initial momentum, but earnings determine which stocks survive rotation. Copper and uranium ran on electrification and nuclear power stories. Those stories aren’t wrong, but they got ahead of actual commodity fundamentals and now they’re correcting.
Meanwhile, the companies that actually manufacture AI infrastructure components—circuit boards, optical fiber, specialty glass, data storage—are rallying because they have order books and backlog visibility. TTM and GLW aren’t guessing about future demand. They’re filling purchase orders from Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta. That’s the difference between speculation and investable business models.
For systematic income traders, this creates clear guidance: focus on Tier 1 names with actual earnings and deep option liquidity. GLW remains the gold standard. WDC and STX offer storage exposure with profit support. TTM is higher risk due to valuation but has explosive growth. All of these are collar-friendly because they have earnings floors and institutional backing.
Avoid the garbage bin entirely—BE, HUT, ALGM, GFS, VSAT. These stocks have no earnings, burn cash, and depend on momentum that can evaporate overnight. Rich IV on these names is a trap, not an opportunity. The premiums look juicy until the stock gaps down 20% and you’re stuck owning unprofitable companies with no visibility to profitability. Stick to quality. Follow the earnings. Let the speculators chase narratives while you collect systematic income from companies that actually make money.
If you’re tracking mid-cap momentum names, today’s tape tells a very different story than last week. Bloom Energy (BE) down 7.2%. Iamgold (IAG) off 6.4%. Hut 8 (HUT) down 5.7%. Applied Digital (APLD) losing 5.3%. This isn’t random profit-taking. This is what happens when liquidity-driven momentum trades meet reality checks, and when the hot money that rushed in starts looking for the exits.
What we’re seeing today is the flip side of last week’s explosive rally: mean reversion, profit-taking, and the painful discovery that not every parabolic move has staying power. For traders running systematic strategies—particularly those looking to enter collar positions on weakness—this creates both opportunity and continued risk. Let’s break down what’s actually selling off, why it matters, and which names might offer tactical entry points versus which ones are telling you to stay away.
Four Distinct Selloff Patterns
1. Energy Transition Darlings Hit Reality (BE, FLNC)
Bloom Energy (BE) getting crushed 7.2% and Fluence Energy (FLNC) flat to down tells you everything about what happens when hydrogen fuel cell and battery storage hype meets valuation gravity. BE trades at a negative P/E, meaning it’s still burning cash. The stock had a monster run on AI data center power stories and energy transition narratives. Today’s selloff? Either profit-taking after the run, or smart money realizing the fundamentals don’t justify the valuation.
These are pure story stocks. No earnings, negative cash flow in BE’s case, and entirely dependent on government subsidies and corporate CapEx programs that can shift on a dime. When momentum reverses, these names don’t have earnings floors to catch them. They fall hard and fast.
2. Commodity and Mining Names Giving Back Gains (IAG, CCJ, CENX)
Iamgold (IAG) down 6.4%, Cameco (CCJ) off 3.6%, and Century Aluminum (CENX) up only 1% after massive recent runs—this is classic commodity mean reversion. These names ripped on the reflation trade, China stimulus hopes, and nuclear renaissance narratives. Today they’re giving some of it back because commodities don’t go straight up, and because fast money always books profits first.
The difference between these and the energy transition plays: these companies have real assets, real production, and real cash flow tied to physical commodity prices. IAG mines gold. CCJ mines uranium. CENX makes aluminum. When gold pulls back or uranium cools off, the stocks follow. But they have floors. They’re not going to zero because they own mines and smelters. This makes them fundamentally different risk profiles than negative-earnings story stocks.
3. Crypto Proxy and AI Infrastructure Speculation (HUT, APLD)
Hut 8 (HUT) down 5.7% and Applied Digital (APLD) down 5.3% represent the highest-risk, most speculative end of this selloff. HUT is a Bitcoin miner that’s also trying to pivot into AI infrastructure. APLD leases data center capacity and has massive debt. Both stocks have negative P/E ratios. Both are entirely momentum-driven with no fundamental support.
These names live and die by two things: crypto sentiment and AI hype. When either cools off—or when risk appetite fades—they get destroyed. The P/E ratios tell you everything: HUT at 33x with no earnings reliability, APLD with no P/E at all because it’s still losing money. These are not collar candidates. These are trading sardines, not eating sardines.
4. Quality Tech and Semi Equipment Holding Up Better (CIEN, LITE, COHR, STX, WDC)
Here’s where it gets interesting. Ciena (CIEN) down only 3.1%, Lumentum (LITE) down 2.6%, Coherent (COHR) down 4%, Seagate (STX) down 0.5%, Western Digital (WDC) down 0.25%—these are the names with actual earnings, real products, and institutional support. They’re not immune to profit-taking, but they’re not collapsing either. CIEN trades at 293x P/E but has explosive growth. STX and WDC have P/E ratios in the 40s-50s with actual profits. COHR at 306x is pricey but the company is profitable and has real tech moats.
What’s Really Happening Under the Hood
This selloff isn’t about a fundamental shift in AI infrastructure demand or commodity cycles. It’s about momentum exhaustion and profit-taking after parabolic moves. Here’s what you need to understand: the fast money that drove these names up 20-50% in a few weeks is now rotating. Some of it’s booking profits. Some of it’s getting margin calls. Some of it’s chasing the next thing. This is how momentum always ends—not with a fundamental reason, but with the simple reality that nothing goes straight up forever.
The key distinction today is between names that are giving back gains but still have fundamental support (CIEN, CCJ, STX, WDC) versus names that are revealing they never had fundamental support in the first place (BE, HUT, APLD). The former will likely find buyers on weakness. The latter will keep falling until they find technical levels or capitulation.
Ranking Names by Risk and Opportunity
For income traders and systematic collar strategies, today’s selloff creates a spectrum of opportunities. Some names are now at better entry points. Others are telling you to stay away. The critical question: which stocks are experiencing healthy profit-taking versus which ones are beginning structural declines?
Green Tier: Tactical Buy-the-Dip Opportunities
These names have corrected but maintain fundamental support and option market quality.
Ticker
Rationale
CIEN
Down 3.1% after massive run. Real AI networking demand, actual earnings growth, liquid options. This is profit-taking, not fundamental deterioration. Weakness here is a gift for collar entry.
STX/WDC
Nearly flat on the day. Hard drive demand for AI storage is real. P/E ratios in the 40s-50s with actual profits. Deep options markets. These are boring businesses in exciting trends—perfect for systematic income.
CCJ
Down 3.6% but uranium thesis intact. 149 P/E reflects growth expectations. Real assets, government support for nuclear. Commodity pullback is normal—not a reason to abandon the position.
LITE
Down 2.6% after parabolic run. Optical components for AI clusters. High P/E (250x) but growing fast. Options liquid. Use wider collar strikes given volatility.
Yellow Tier: Proceed with Extreme Caution
High risk but tradable if you’re disciplined and understand you’re speculating.
Ticker
Rationale
COHR
Down 4%. Expensive at 306 P/E but profitable with tech moats. Risk: valuation is stretched. If momentum fully reverses, this has a long way to fall. Only for aggressive traders.
IAG
Down 6.4% after big run. Gold miner with real assets but commodity exposure cuts both ways. 35 P/E reasonable. Option quality is marginal. Only if you want gold exposure and accept volatility.
CENX
Up 1% today but watch closely. Aluminum is cyclical. 62 P/E suggests growth priced in. Real assets provide floor but aluminum price determines ceiling. Tactical only.
Red Tier: Avoid for Systematic Strategies
These are falling for fundamental reasons, not just profit-taking. Stay away.
Ticker
Rationale
BE
Down 7.2%. Negative P/E means no earnings. Hydrogen fuel cell story is pure speculation. No earnings floor to catch it. This is dead money until fundamentals improve—which could be never.
HUT
Down 5.7%. Bitcoin miner trying to be an AI play. 33 P/E with erratic earnings. Pure speculation. When crypto sentiment turns or AI hype fades, this goes much lower. Not collar-worthy.
APLD
Down 5.3%. No P/E because it loses money. Data center leasing with massive debt. Entirely momentum-driven. When momentum dies, so does the stock. Trading sardine, not eating sardine.
FLNC
Flat today but negative P/E. Battery storage story depends entirely on government subsidies and utility CapEx. No fundamental support. If energy transition hype fades, this follows BE lower.
What Systematic Traders Should Do Now
First, recognize what this selloff represents: it’s not the end of the AI infrastructure or commodity reflation themes. It’s a healthy (or unhealthy, depending on the name) correction after parabolic moves. The key question is whether individual stocks are correcting within intact uptrends or beginning structural declines.
For collar traders and income strategies, today’s weakness creates entry opportunities in the Green Tier names—particularly CIEN, STX, WDC, and CCJ. These stocks have pulled back but maintain fundamental support, liquid option markets, and durable business models. Weakness here is a chance to establish positions with better cost basis and richer premium collection opportunities.
The Yellow Tier names—COHR, IAG, CENX—require more caution. These are tradable but only if you understand you’re taking commodity exposure or valuation risk. If you enter these, use wider protective collars and smaller position sizes. Don’t bet the ranch on cyclical commodities or stretched valuations.
The Red Tier names—BE, HUT, APLD, FLNC—should be avoided entirely for systematic income strategies. These stocks lack earnings support, burn cash, and depend on narratives that can evaporate overnight. When they fall, they fall hard and fast with no floor. Don’t try to catch falling knives just because the IV looks juicy. Rich premiums on garbage companies are still garbage.
Bottom Line: Separate Signal from Noise
Today’s selloff is revealing which companies had real fundamental support and which ones were riding pure momentum. The tech and semi equipment names with actual earnings (CIEN, STX, WDC, LITE) are holding up relatively well and pulling back in orderly fashion. The commodity plays (CCJ, IAG, CENX) are experiencing normal mean reversion after big runs. The speculative garbage (BE, HUT, APLD) is getting exposed for what it always was: hot money chasing stories with no earnings support.
For income traders, the lesson is simple: wait for quality names to correct, then establish collar positions with protection in place. Don’t chase momentum on the way up, and don’t try to catch falling knives on the way down. Let the market do its work. The stocks with real businesses will find support. The stocks without fundamentals will keep falling until they hit technical levels or complete capitulation.
The opportunity today is in patience and selectivity. Use this weakness to build watchlists of quality names at better prices. Avoid the temptation to “get a deal” on speculative junk just because it’s down big. Stick to companies with actual earnings, real assets, and liquid option markets. That’s how you generate repeatable income without blowing up your account when momentum reverses.
What’s Really Driving These Moves and Which Names Are Collar-Friendly
If you’ve been watching mid-cap tech and commodities lately, you’ve seen some eye-popping moves. Stocks like Corning (GLW), Ciena (CIEN), Celestica (CLS), and a parade of miners, solar names, and space plays all ripping 20–50% in short order. This isn’t random. It’s not a broad economic recovery. And it’s definitely not “safe.”
What we’re seeing is a very specific cocktail of AI infrastructure build-out, commodities reflation, defense spending narratives, and violent short-covering in heavily shorted names. For income traders running collars or wheel strategies, this creates both opportunity and danger. Let’s break down what’s actually happening, which names make sense for systematic income generation, and which ones are just squeeze garbage you should avoid.
The Five Driving Forces
1. AI Infrastructure CapEx Explosion
The biggest driver across this entire list is physical AI infrastructure. This isn’t the software hype cycle anymore. The hyperscalers—Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta—are spending astronomical sums on data centers, optical networking, power systems, cooling, and server manufacturing. Wall Street finally woke up to the fact that someone has to actually build this stuff.
Key names benefiting: GLW (fiber optics and glass substrates), CIEN and LITE (optical networking gear), CLS (AI server manufacturing with exploding margins), ACMR (semiconductor equipment), APLD (data center leasing), and DOCN (cloud hosting with AI workload positioning). These aren’t vapor plays. Companies are reporting real order flow, growing backlogs, and actual earnings beats tied to hyperscaler demand.
2. Hard Asset Reflation and Commodity Supercycle Talk
The most underappreciated piece of this rally is the reflation trade in hard assets. Inflation never fully died. China stimulus whispers are circulating. Energy transition metals and nuclear are suddenly politically fashionable again. Gold and silver are catching flows as real rates wobble and geopolitical uncertainty persists.
Key names: CDE and IAG (silver/gold leverage), UEC (uranium revival as nuclear becomes “clean” again), ALB (lithium rebound after brutal collapse), CENX (aluminum for infrastructure, defense, and autos). This isn’t meme trading. This is a bet on real physical demand for materials in a world that still needs copper, lithium, uranium, and aluminum regardless of what tech does.
3. Space, Defense, and “New Cold War” Narratives
Names like LUNR (Intuitive Machines) and PL (Planet Labs) are pure narrative plays fueled by government contracts, defense spending increases, and dual-use space technology. These stocks were destroyed previously, carried massive short interest, and became squeeze fuel when the defense/space narrative caught fire. These aren’t about earnings yet. They’re about story plus shorts getting carried out.
4. Rate Stabilization and High-Beta Mean Reversion
Solar (RUN) and insurance tech (LMND) represent oversold names that got absolutely destroyed and are now bouncing hard on any hint of rate relief. Solar was left for dead due to financing fears. Lemonade was crushed on profitability concerns. Both carried heavy short interest. When rates stabilized and liquidity loosened, these names exploded. This is classic dead-cat-learns-to-fly action—oversold rebound plus shorts covering, not fundamentals permanently fixed.
5. The Liquidity, Momentum, and Short-Covering Storm
Here’s the key insight that ties everything together: rates stopped going up, liquidity loosened, short interest was massive across these names, momentum funds returned, retail started chasing again, and CTAs flipped long. When all those forces converge, mid-cap high-beta names rip together regardless of individual fundamentals. This is theme convergence, not company-specific miracles.
What This Rally Is NOT
Let’s be blunt about what we’re not seeing. This is not a broad economic recovery. This is not value investing. This is not defensive money flowing into quality. This is not “safe.” What this is: liquidity-driven theme clustering, narrative convergence, short covering, and momentum chasing. Historically, moves like this end in one of three ways: sideways digestion (best case), sharp 20–40% pullbacks, or rotation into laggards. Very rarely do they go straight up forever.
Ranking Names by Collar-Friendliness
For income traders, the critical question is: which of these names can you actually run systematic collars on? Not every high-flyer makes sense for protected income strategies. You need weekly or monthly option chains with real volume, stocks you’d be willing to own through a drawdown, implied volatility rich enough to pay for protection, and companies that won’t gap down 40% on a single headline.
Tier 1: Excellent Collar Candidates (Core Income Trades)
Ticker
Rationale
GLW
Best overall. Deep options, institutional liquidity, real AI infrastructure tailwind. IV elevated but not insane. Boring company, exciting demand—perfect collar DNA.
ALB
Huge options market. Lithium volatility equals fat premiums. Asset-backed business. Governments won’t let lithium disappear. Risk: commodity whipsaws. Reward: excellent income plus protection pricing.
CIEN
AI networking equals durable theme. Clean chart, tight spreads, active calls. Textbook collar stock.
CENX
Real assets, real demand. Defense plus infrastructure exposure. Options liquid enough to work. More cyclical but still collar-worthy.
Tier 2: Conditional/Tactical Collars
Good only if you’re disciplined on strikes and duration.
Ticker
Rationale
LITE
Strong AI optics story, tradable IV. But violent gap risk around earnings. Use wider collars. No tight strikes.
CLS
Massive runner, premium rich. But parabolic charts kill collars if you cap too tight. Rule: sell calls farther out or get called every time.
ACMR
Semi equipment equals cyclical. Options decent but thinner. Needs patience. Fine for monthly collars, not weekly churn.
RUN
Solar volatility equals juicy premiums. But this can drop 30% on policy headlines. Only collar if comfortable owning it ugly.
Tier 3: Poor Collar Candidates (Avoid for Income)
These are trading vehicles, not income machines: DOCN (thin options, takeover rumor gaps), LMND (IV too chaotic, earnings gaps), PL (story stock, inconsistent options), LUNR (absolute no—binary space risk), APLD (squeeze stock, IV lying to you), UEC (headline gaps, thin protection), IAG/CDE (erratic option pricing, poor risk/reward for income).
Spotlight: CIEN (Ciena) Setup
CIEN closed at $257.30, up 3.96% on the day, after trading as high as $261.69. The core driver is legitimate: AI and data-center networking demand. Ciena sells high-speed optical and networking gear that hyperscalers need to link AI clusters. Recent earnings showed a beat on revenue and earnings with raised outlook and strong cloud demand. This isn’t vapor—there’s real order flow supporting the move.
Technically, CIEN is above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages with positive MACD momentum. Support sits around $230, with resistance in the $238–$246 range. A break above $246 could trigger acceleration from short-covering and momentum players. The main risk is profit-taking after a big run or broader tech sector weakness.
For collar traders, CIEN fits the Tier 1 profile: AI networking as a durable theme, clean chart structure, tight spreads, and active call volume. The options market is liquid enough for systematic income strategies. The key is not getting too aggressive on upside strike selection given the strong momentum.
Bottom Line
This mid-cap rally is real in the sense that it’s driven by actual capital flows, real infrastructure spending, and legitimate reflation in hard assets. But it’s also dangerous because it’s heavily momentum-driven, fueled by short covering, and concentrated in high-beta names that can reverse violently.
For income traders, the opportunity is in the Tier 1 names—GLW, ALB, CIEN, CENX—where you get boring companies in exciting trends with liquid options markets. Avoid the headline stocks and parabolic squeeze plays. Don’t collar garbage just because it’s moving.
The music will stop eventually. When rates tick higher again, liquidity tightens, or momentum funds rotate, these names will give back gains fast. The goal for systematic traders is to extract repeatable income during the rally while maintaining downside protection—not to predict the top or swing for home runs. Stay disciplined on strike selection, use wider collars on volatile names, and always know your exit plan before the trade goes on.
How to Use the Hedge Fund Income Strategy They Don’t Want You to Know
Generate 30–45% Annual Cash Flow Using the Same Structure as the Japanese Carry Trade
December 16, 2025 Edition
What Hedge Funds Know (That Retail Doesn’t)
Professional traders understand something fundamental about options pricing that sounds complicated but is actually very simple.
Let me explain it the way a hedge fund manager explained it to his 12-year-old daughter:
“Dad, what do you do at work?”
“I sell insurance to people who are scared.”
“What kind of insurance?”
“Stock insurance. People are afraid their stocks might drop, so they pay me money every week for protection.”
“But what if the stocks DO drop?”
“Most of the time, they don’t drop as much as people think. People pay me $100 for insurance against a $50 problem. I keep the extra $50.”
“That seems like a good deal for you.”
“It is. And here’s the secret: I ALSO buy my own insurance—really cheap insurance that lasts a long time. So if stocks ever crash badly, I’m protected too.”
“So you get paid to sell expensive insurance, and you buy cheap insurance for yourself?”
“Exactly.”
“Why doesn’t everyone do this?”
“Because most people don’t know they can.”
The Simple Truth About Options Prices
Here’s what hedge funds discovered:
People overpay for short-term protection.
Think about car insurance:
Insurance for one week: $50
Insurance for one year: $600 (which is like $11.50 per week)
Why is weekly insurance so expensive? Because insurance companies know most people won’t use it, and they charge extra for the convenience of short-term coverage.
Options work the same way.
When you sell a weekly call option, someone is paying you $400 to protect against the stock going up too much THIS WEEK.
But most weeks? The stock doesn’t go up that much.
You’re getting paid $400 for protection that was really only worth $250.
The extra $150? That’s your profit. That’s “the carry.”
The Long-Term Protection Is Cheap
Now here’s the other side:
Long-term protection is cheap per week.
If you buy a put option that lasts 2 years (104 weeks), it might cost you $5,200 total.
That’s $50 per week.
But here’s what you’re collecting every week from selling calls: $400.
Math:
You collect: $400/week
You pay: $50/week (spread over the year)
Your profit: $350/week
And that protection you bought? It saves you from disaster if the market crashes.
Why This Works (The 6th Grade Version)
Imagine you have a lemonade stand.
Every week, people pay you $10 to make sure their lemonade doesn’t spill.
Most weeks, nobody spills anything. You keep the $10.
Once a year, you pay $100 for a big insurance policy that covers ALL spills for the whole year.
Math:
You collect $10/week × 52 weeks = $520/year
You pay $100/year for your insurance
Your profit: $420/year
And if there’s ever a huge spill? Your $100 insurance covers it.
The Market Systematically Overprices Short-Term Volatility
Big words, simple meaning:
“Volatility” = How much the stock price bounces around
“Short-term” = This week
“Overprices” = Charges too much
People are scared stocks will bounce around a lot THIS WEEK. So they pay extra for protection.
But most weeks? Stocks don’t bounce that much.
The market charges $400 for weekly protection that’s really only worth $250.
That $150 difference? That’s yours to keep. Every week. For decades.
Why This Is Not Speculation
Speculation = guessing which way the stock will go
This strategy doesn’t care which way stocks go.
If stocks go up a little: You keep your premium ✓
If stocks go sideways: You keep your premium ✓
If stocks go down a little: You keep your premium ✓
If stocks crash hard: Your long-term protection saves you ✓
You’re not betting on direction.
You’re harvesting the difference between:
What scared people pay you (weekly calls = expensive)
What calm protection costs you (yearly puts = cheap)
That difference is structural. It doesn’t disappear.
The Spread Between What You Collect and What You Pay Is the Carry
“Carry” just means the profit you get from the difference.
Think of it like this:
You rent out your house for $3,000/month. Your mortgage costs you $1,500/month. Your “carry” is $1,500/month profit.
In this strategy:
You collect $1,600/month selling weekly calls. Your yearly protection costs you $5,200 (which is $433/month). Your “carry” is $1,167/month profit.
That’s it. That’s the whole strategy.
Collect more than you spend. The difference is income.
This Is the Same Edge That Made the Japanese Carry Trade Profitable for Thirty Years
In the 1990s and 2000s, hedge funds did something called the “Japanese Carry Trade”:
Borrow money in Japan at 0% interest
Invest it in America at 5% interest
Keep the 5% difference
They did this for 30 years. Made billions.
Why did it work for so long?
Because Japan ALWAYS had low interest rates, and America ALWAYS had higher rates.
The difference was structural, not temporary.
The options carry trade is the same concept:
Sell weekly options at high prices (people are always scared short-term)
Buy yearly protection at low prices (long-term protection is always cheaper per week)
Keep the difference
People are ALWAYS more scared about this week than they are about next year.
That fear premium has existed since options started trading in 1973.
It’s not going away.
Hedge Funds Have Harvested This Edge Since the 1990s
Morgan Stanley. Goldman Sachs. Citadel. Bridgewater.
They’ve all run versions of this strategy for 30+ years.
They don’t talk about it publicly because:
It’s boring (no CNBC headlines)
It works (why share it?)
Retail investors weren’t supposed to know
But now you do.
Now You Can Too
You don’t need:
A finance degree
Special software
A trading desk
Millions of dollars
You need:
A brokerage account with options approval
$100,000+ to deploy
45 minutes per week
The discipline to follow the system
The edge is simple:
Short-term protection is expensive (sell it). Long-term protection is cheap (buy it). The difference is your income.
Hedge funds figured this out in the 1990s.
They’ve been collecting this premium for three decades.
You’re not discovering something new.
You’re doing what the professionals have done since your parents were in high school.
The only difference? You’re keeping 100% of the profits instead of paying them 2% + 20% of gains.
That’s the Retail Carry Trade.
Simple enough for a 6th grader.
Profitable enough for a billionaire.
Now it’s yours.
Disclaimer
This book is for educational purposes only. Options involve substantial risk and are not suitable for all investors. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Consult a qualified financial professional before implementing any strategy discussed herein.
Prologue: The Secret the Hedge Funds Keep
David sat in the conference room on the 14th floor, watching his financial advisor flip through the quarterly report. Sixty-three years old. Retirement in eighteen months. The meeting he’d been having every quarter for the past eleven years.
“Your portfolio is up 9.2% year-to-date,” the advisor said, pointing to a chart with an upward-sloping line. “We’re outperforming the benchmark by—”
“How much cash?” David interrupted.
The advisor paused. “I’m sorry?”
“How much actual cash did I make? Spendable. Not on paper.”
The advisor’s finger moved to a different page. “Well, the dividends were $18,400 for the year, paid quarterly, and—”
“On $850,000.”
“Yes.”
“That’s 2.1%.”
Silence.
“David, you’re thinking about this wrong. Your total return was over 9%, and when you retire, we’ll implement a systematic withdrawal strategy that—”
“I don’t want a withdrawal strategy. I want income. My father had a pension. He got a check every month. I need the same thing, but I don’t have a pension.”
“The 4% rule—”
“Is a guess. What if the market drops the year I retire? What if I withdraw 4% and then it falls 30%? You’ve shown me the Monte Carlo simulations. I’ve seen the failure rates.”
The advisor leaned back. “David, you’re describing sequence-of-returns risk, and yes, it’s real. But the alternative is accepting lower returns and potentially running out of money later.”
David stood up. The meeting was over.
That evening, he did what he always did when someone told him there was no solution: he started digging.
He started with the Japanese carry trade. The strategy that hedge funds had used for decades to print money. Borrow in yen at near-zero rates. Invest in higher-yielding assets. Collect the spread.
Simple. Elegant. Massively profitable.
But that’s not what caught his attention.
What caught his attention was a footnote in a research paper from a former Goldman Sachs options desk trader. The paper explained how institutional investors were running a different kind of carry trade—not with currencies, but with volatility.
The structure was a collar. But unlike the conservative collars sold to retail investors (designed to reduce volatility for fee-based advisors), this was an income collar—designed to extract maximum cash flow while maintaining market exposure.
Hedge funds called it “volatility arbitrage” or “dispersion trading.”
David called it exactly what he needed.
Three weeks later, he found a detailed breakdown on an obscure forum from a former market maker. The strategy had a name in the retail world: the Protected Wheel.
Six months after that Tuesday, David was generating $28,000 per month in option premium income on the same $850,000 portfolio.
His advisor never called to ask how.
This book is what David found. It’s the same income structure hedge funds have used for decades—now available to anyone with a brokerage account and the discipline to execute it.
Your advisor won’t tell you about it.
But hedge funds have been doing it since the 1990s.
Executive Summary (Read This First)
This book presents the retail version of a strategy hedge funds have used for decades: the volatility carry trade.
While the Japanese carry trade borrowed cheap yen to invest in higher-yielding assets, the options carry trade does something similar:
Own the underlying asset (SPY/QQQ—broad market exposure)
Hedge funds call this “volatility arbitrage” or “dispersion trading.”
We call it the Retail Carry Trade—because now you can do it too.
The structure uses only two ETFs—SPY (S&P 500) and QQQ (Nasdaq-100)—to generate 30–45% annualized cash income primarily from option premiums, while long-dated puts cap catastrophic downside.
What Hedge Funds Discovered
In the 1990s and early 2000s, institutional traders realized something crucial:
Short-term implied volatility is almost always overpriced relative to realized volatility.
Translation: The market pays you more to sell short-term options than those options are actually worth.
Hedge funds built entire strategies around this edge:
Sell weekly and monthly options
Collect premium income
Hedge with long-term protection
Repeat indefinitely
This is not speculation. This is not directional trading. This is premium harvesting—the same way the Japanese carry trade harvested interest rate differentials.
The edge is structural. It doesn’t disappear.
Why Retail Investors Never Heard About It
Because it doesn’t fit the advisory business model.
Hedge funds charge 2 and 20 (2% management fee + 20% performance fee). They profit from absolute returns and income generation.
Retail advisors charge 1% on assets under management. They profit from growing account balances, not distributing cash.
The strategies serve different masters.
Hedge funds optimize for cash flow and risk-adjusted returns.
Retail advisors optimize for AUM growth and client retention.
This is why your advisor never mentioned it.
The Problem It Solves
Bonds yield ~4% and lose to inflation
Dividends alone are insufficient
Buy-and-hold exposes retirees to sequence-of-returns risk
The real retirement risk is running out of cash flow, not market volatility.
The Solution in One Sentence
Own the market, insure the downside, sell time every week.
How It Works (At a Glance)
Buy 100-share blocks of SPY and/or QQQ
Buy a long-dated put (Jan 2027, 5–8% out-of-the-money) to define maximum loss
Sell weekly out-of-the-money calls (20–30 delta)
Collect premiums weekly as spendable income
This is an aggressive income collar, not a speculative trading system.
Why SPY & QQQ Only
Ultra-liquid options
Weekly expirations
No earnings risk
No fraud or blow-up risk
Recommended allocation:
60–70% SPY (stability)
30–40% QQQ (income boost)
Real-World Income Examples (Illustrative)
Assumptions (conservative):
SPY weekly call income ≈ 0.6% of deployed capital
QQQ weekly call income ≈ 0.9% of deployed capital
Long-dated puts fully paid for by premiums over time
$100,000 Portfolio
$65k SPY / $35k QQQ
Weekly income ≈ $390 (SPY) + $315 (QQQ) = ~$705/week
Annualized cash flow ≈ $36,000–$40,000 (36–40%)
$250,000 Portfolio
$165k SPY / $85k QQQ
Weekly income ≈ $990 (SPY) + $765 (QQQ) = ~$1,755/week
Annualized cash flow ≈ $85,000–$95,000
$500,000 Portfolio
$325k SPY / $175k QQQ
Weekly income ≈ $1,950 (SPY) + $1,575 (QQQ) = ~$3,525/week
Annualized cash flow ≈ $170,000–$190,000
These figures reflect premium income only. Market appreciation is secondary and not required for success.
Expected Results (Not Promises)
SPY: ~30–35% annualized cash yield
QQQ: ~40–45% annualized cash yield
Income is premium-driven, not price-driven
Upside is capped, downside is defined
What This Strategy Is NOT
Not a get-rich-quick system
Not market-beating in melt-up rallies
Not passive—you manage weekly
Key Risks (Be Honest)
Premiums compress in low volatility
Upside is sacrificed for income
Requires discipline and consistency
Who This Is For
Retirees and near-retirees
Income-focused investors
Anyone who values predictable cash flow over bragging rights
Bottom Line
If you want growth stories, buy and hold.
If you want cash you can spend, with market exposure and controlled risk, the Protected Wheel delivers a repeatable framework that works across market cycles.
One-Week Trade Snapshot (Actual Structure)
Illustrative snapshot based on typical market conditions; prices rounded.
Example Week: SPY & QQQ Income Cycle
Underlying prices:
SPY: ~$681
QQQ: ~$610
Protection (already in place):
SPY Jan 2027 630 Put (≈7.5% OTM)
QQQ Jan 2027 560 Put (≈8% OTM)
These puts define worst-case loss and are not traded weekly.
Weekly Call Sales
SPY Call Sale
Expiration: Friday (same week)
Strike: 695
Delta: ~0.25
Premium: ~$3.90 per share ($390 per contract)
QQQ Call Sale
Expiration: Friday (same week)
Strike: 630
Delta: ~0.28
Premium: ~$5.25 per share ($525 per contract)
Weekly Cash Collected (per 100 shares):
SPY: $390
QQQ: $525
No forecasting. If called away, shares are replaced the following week.
What the Monthly Checks Look Like
This strategy is judged by cash deposited, not account balance fluctuations.
Monthly Income Illustration (Per $100,000)
Assumes 65% SPY / 35% QQQ allocation.
Month
Weekly Avg
Monthly Cash
Notes
January
$700
~$3,000
Lower volatility
February
$750
~$3,200
Normal conditions
March
$900
~$3,900
Volatility spike
April
$650
~$2,800
Compression
May
$800
~$3,500
Earnings season
June
$750
~$3,200
Steady
Annual Run-Rate: ~$36,000–$40,000 per $100k
Scale linearly with capital.
Why This Beats Dividend Portfolios (Blunt Version)
Dividend portfolios are sold as “safe.” They are not.
Dividends:
2–4% yields
Cut during recessions
Paid quarterly
No downside protection
Protected Wheel:
30–45% cash yield
Paid weekly
Adjustable in real time
Downside defined by insurance
Dividends depend on corporate generosity.
Option premiums depend on time and volatility, which never disappear.
This strategy replaces hope with math.
Stress Test: Income Through Market Crashes
This strategy is designed for when markets misbehave.
2008 Financial Crisis
Volatility exploded
Call premiums increased
Long puts expanded sharply
Income continued while portfolios collapsed
2020 COVID Crash
SPY dropped ~34% peak to trough
Weekly premiums doubled in weeks
Protected Wheel sellers were paid more for risk
No forced liquidation
2022 Rate Shock Bear Market
Prolonged grind lower
Sideways volatility favored premium sellers
Income remained consistent
Buy-and-hold investors stagnated
Key Point: Crashes are income events for disciplined option sellers.
Protection allows participation instead of panic.
What Happens If SPY Drops 25% in 90 Days (Step-by-Step)
This is the scenario retirees fear most. Here is exactly how the Protected Wheel responds.
Starting Point
SPY price: $680
Shares owned: 100
Long put: Jan 2027 630
Weekly calls: 20–30 delta
Month 1: Initial Selloff (-8% to -10%)
SPY falls to ~$620
Call premiums increase due to volatility
Weekly income rises despite falling prices
Long put begins gaining intrinsic value
Action: Continue selling weekly calls above market price. No panic, no changes.
Month 2: Acceleration (-15% to -20%)
SPY trades ~$545–$580
Call strikes move lower, but premiums remain elevated
Long put now provides meaningful downside offset
Net account drawdown is far smaller than buy-and-hold
Action: Maintain structure. Income continues. No forced sales.
Month 3: Capitulation (-25%)
SPY near ~$510
Volatility peaks
Weekly call income remains strong
Long put absorbs additional downside
Result at 90 Days:
Capital loss is defined and survivable
Premium income partially offsets price decline
Shares are still owned
Strategy remains intact
The Psychological Difference
Buy-and-hold investors:
Freeze or sell near lows
Lock in losses
Protected Wheel operators:
Get paid more
Stay systematic
Avoid emotional decisions
Bottom Line: A 25% drop is not a failure event. It is a stress test the strategy was built to pass.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: The Retirement Income Problem (And Why Bonds Fail)
Chapter 2: Why Your Broker Will Not Recommend This
Chapter 3: The Case for SPY & QQQ Only
Chapter 4: What Is the Protected Wheel?
Chapter 4: Why Protection Changes Everything
Chapter 5: Strategy Architecture: The Exact Mechanics
Chapter 6: Strike Selection, Deltas, and Timing
Chapter 7: Cash Flow Math: Where 30–45% Comes From
Chapter 8: SPY vs QQQ: Risk, Reward, and Allocation
Chapter 9: Market Regimes: Bull, Bear, Sideways
Chapter 10: The Rules Checklist (Laminated-Card Simple)
Chapter 11: Your First 30 Days (Implementation Guide)
Chapter 12: Full 12-Month Cash Ledger ($250k & $500k)
Chapter 13: Tax Considerations and Account Structure
Chapter 14: Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
Chapter 15: When to Exit or Modify
Retirees were sold a lie: that bonds would reliably fund retirement. With yields hovering around 4% and inflation eating half of that, traditional fixed income no longer does the job. You either take equity risk, or you accept shrinking purchasing power. There is no third option.
The Protected Wheel exists because retirees need cash flow, not stories about long-term averages.
Appendix A: Compliance-Safe Language for Advisors
Appendix B: Broker Requirements and Platform Setup
PART ONE: FOUNDATION
Chapter 1: The Retirement Income Problem (And Why Bonds Fail)
Margaret’s hands shook as she read the letter from her bond fund. Third dividend cut in two years.
She’d done everything right. Saved diligently. Diversified. Followed the advice. Sixty percent stocks, forty percent bonds. The classic retiree allocation.
The bonds were supposed to be the safe part. The income part. The part that paid her bills while the stocks grew.
Except the bonds paid 3.8%. And inflation was running at 3.2%. Her “safe” income was gaining 0.6% per year in purchasing power. Before taxes.
After taxes, she was losing ground.
She called her advisor.
“Margaret, bond yields are what they are. The Fed has kept rates elevated, but with inflation moderating, this is actually a reasonable real return. And remember, bonds provide stability. They’re not supposed to be growth vehicles.”
“I don’t need growth vehicles. I need income. I need to pay my mortgage. I need to buy groceries. I can’t pay bills with ‘stability.'”
“I understand your frustration. We could look at high-yield bonds, but those carry more risk—”
“Everything carries risk. I’m just trying to understand why I spent forty years saving money and now I can’t afford to live on it.”
The advisor had no answer.
Because there isn’t one. Not in the traditional model.
The Promise That Broke
For fifty years, retirees were sold a simple story:
Save money while you work
At retirement, shift to bonds for income
Live off the interest
Leave the principal to your kids
It worked for one generation. The generation that retired in the 1980s and 1990s, when bonds paid 7%, 9%, even 12%.
A $500,000 bond portfolio at 8% threw off $40,000 per year. Livable. Sustainable.
But that generation is gone. And so are those yields.
Today’s retiree faces:
Bond yields at 4%
Inflation at 3%+
Real return of ~1%
Taxes eating another 25-30%
The math is simple. And devastating.
A $500,000 portfolio at 4% generates $20,000 per year. After taxes, that’s $14,000-$15,000. After inflation, the purchasing power drops further every year.
You cannot retire on this. Not with dignity.
The Two Bad Options
When Margaret realized bonds wouldn’t work, her advisor presented two alternatives:
Option 1: Stay in stocks for growth
“Keep your equity allocation high. Accept the volatility. Over time, stocks outperform bonds, and you can sell shares as needed for income.”
Translation: Bet that the market goes up during your retirement. Hope you don’t hit a bear market in year two. Pray sequence-of-returns risk doesn’t destroy you.
Option 2: Annuities
“We can lock in guaranteed income with an annuity. You’ll get a check every month for life.”
Translation: Hand over your principal, lose liquidity, accept 4-5% payout rates, and hope the insurance company doesn’t fail.
Margaret looked at both options.
Option 1 terrified her. She remembered 2008. She remembered friends who retired in 2007 with $800,000 and were forced back to work in 2009 with $450,000.
Option 2 felt like surrender. Give up control. Accept mediocre returns. Lock in for life.
She didn’t choose either.
She kept digging.
What Retirees Actually Need
Margaret didn’t need to beat the market. She didn’t need to impress anyone at the country club with her portfolio performance.
She needed $5,000 per month. Reliable. Repeatable. For the next thirty years.
That’s it.
The traditional retirement industry has no clean answer for this. Because the traditional industry optimizes for:
Assets under management (their fees)
Portfolio values (their performance reporting)
Long-term growth (their marketing materials)
They don’t optimize for cash flow. Because cash flow leaves the account. And when cash leaves the account, fees shrink.
Your income problem is their revenue problem.
The Real Risk
Advisors talk about “risk” as if it means volatility. Price swings. Drawdowns. Standard deviation.
But that’s not the risk that matters to retirees.
The real risk is running out of money.
The real risk is being eighty-two years old and choosing between prescriptions and groceries.
The real risk is selling stocks at the bottom because you need cash and the market decided to drop 30% the year you retired.
Margaret understood this. And she understood that her advisor’s focus on portfolio growth and Sharpe ratios had nothing to do with her actual problem.
She didn’t need her portfolio to compound at 8% if she couldn’t spend any of it.
She needed income. Weekly. Monthly. Regardless of whether the market was up or down.
The Answer They Won’t Give You
Six months after that phone call, Margaret was generating $4,200 per week in option premiums on a $650,000 portfolio.
She didn’t sell a single share. She didn’t lock up her principal in an annuity. She didn’t pray for the market to cooperate.
She learned to sell time.
The Protected Wheel exists because Margaret, David, and thousands of others like them figured out what the retirement industry refuses to acknowledge:
Income doesn’t come from hoping. It comes from structure.
Retirees were sold a lie: that bonds would reliably fund retirement. With yields hovering around 4% and inflation eating half of that, traditional fixed income no longer does the job. You either take equity risk, or you accept shrinking purchasing power. There is no third option.
The Protected Wheel exists because retirees need cash flow, not stories about long-term averages.
Chapter 2: Why Your Broker Will Not Recommend This
Tom worked at a major wirehouse for seventeen years. Series 7, Series 66, CFP®. He managed $240 million in client assets.
He was good at his job. His clients liked him. His retention rate was high. He won awards.
And then one of his clients—a retired engineer named Robert—came to a review meeting and said something that changed everything.
“Tom, I’ve been doing some research. I want to talk about option strategies.”
Tom smiled. “Sure. We can add a covered call overlay if you want some extra income. I’ve got a strategy paper I can send you.”
“Not a covered call overlay. A protected collar. Weekly call sales. Long-dated downside protection. I want to run this on SPY and QQQ.”
Tom’s smile faded. “Robert, that’s… that’s pretty aggressive for someone in retirement. Options are complex instruments, and—”
“I’ve done the math. I can generate 30-35% annualized income with defined downside risk. That’s $120,000 per year on my $400,000 IRA. I need $60,000 to live. This solves my retirement.”
Tom shifted in his chair. “Let me talk to compliance and see what—”
“You’re going to tell me no.”
“I’m going to tell you that I need to make sure any recommendation is suitable, and that kind of weekly options activity—”
“I’m not asking for a recommendation. I’m telling you what I’m going to do. I just want to know if I can do it here or if I need to move my account.”
Tom paused. He’d known Robert for nine years. He knew the client was smart, methodical, disciplined.
And he knew what would happen if Robert moved the account.
The Conversation Tom Had That Night
Tom went home and did the math himself.
Robert’s account: $400,000
Annual advisory fee (1%): $4,000
If Robert implemented the strategy and withdrew $60,000 per year, the account would shrink to $340,000 after year one.
Next year’s fee: $3,400
Tom’s revenue from Robert would drop $600. And if Robert kept withdrawing, it would keep dropping.
Now multiply that by 200 clients.
Tom sat at his kitchen table and stared at his laptop. He’d built his practice on helping people retire successfully. He believed in what he did.
But the firm measured him on assets under management, not on whether his clients had enough money to buy groceries.
His performance review never asked: “Did your clients have enough income this year?”
It asked: “Did your AUM grow?”
What Compliance Said
Tom brought Robert’s request to the compliance department.
“He wants to do what?”
“Weekly covered calls with long-dated protective puts. A collar structure on SPY and QQQ.”
The compliance officer—a former attorney named Michelle—frowned. “That’s a lot of activity. What’s the investment thesis?”
“Thirty percent.” Michelle wrote something down. “That sounds… aggressive. Does he understand the risks? Does he understand that options can expire worthless? Does he understand tax implications?”
“He’s an engineer. He built a spreadsheet. He understands it better than most advisors.”
“Tom, here’s the issue. If we approve this and it goes wrong—if there’s a massive drawdown, if he complains, if he sues—we have to defend it. And defending weekly options activity for a seventy-two-year-old retiree is not a fight we want to have with FINRA.”
“But if he moves his account to a self-directed brokerage, he can do whatever he wants.”
“That’s his choice. We’re not in the business of approving high-risk strategies just because a client wants them.”
Tom knew what that meant.
Robert would leave. And Tom’s AUM would drop by $400,000.
The Real Reason
Tom called Robert and delivered the news.
“I’m sorry. Compliance won’t approve it. They’re concerned about the activity level and the suitability for your age and risk profile.”
Robert was silent for a moment. Then: “Tom, can I ask you something?”
“Of course.”
“If you could do this strategy yourself—if you weren’t restricted by compliance—would you do it?”
Tom hesitated. “I… I don’t know. I’d have to study it more.”
“That’s not what I asked. If the math works, if the risk is defined, if the income is there—would you do it?”
“Honestly? Probably.”
“Then why won’t you let me?”
Tom didn’t have an answer.
Robert moved his account two weeks later.
This Chapter Exists Because of Tom
Tom stayed at the wirehouse for three more years. Then he left to start his own RIA.
He now manages $60 million in assets. Fewer clients. Smaller firm. No compliance department telling him what he can’t do.
And he runs the Protected Wheel for seventeen of his clients.
But most advisors never leave. They stay in the system. They follow the rules. They recommend what compliance approves.
And they never tell you about strategies like this.
Not because they’re bad people.
Because the system isn’t built for your income. It’s built for their fees.
The Incentive Structure (Explained Plainly)
The standard advisory model charges 1% annually on total account value.
For a $500,000 account:
Traditional portfolio: $5,000/year in fees (every year, forever)
Protected Wheel: Same $5,000/year in fees
The problem? The Protected Wheel generates $180,000/year in income. You might withdraw $100,000. Your account balance shrinks. Next year, they charge 1% on $400,000 instead of $500,000.
Their revenue drops as you succeed.
Buy-and-hold keeps assets growing (hopefully). Growing assets = growing fees. Income strategies that distribute cash shrink the base.
You are not the customer in the traditional model. Your account balance is.
This Strategy Requires Work
Advisors manage hundreds of clients. They cannot babysit weekly option expirations across 300 portfolios.
They need:
Set-it-and-forget-it allocations
Quarterly rebalancing at most
Strategies that scale to their entire book
The Protected Wheel demands weekly attention. It doesn’t fit their operational model, even if it’s superior for your cash flow.
Options Are Positioned as “Risky”
The retail investment industry spent decades teaching clients that:
Stocks = investing
Options = gambling
This framing protects their business model. If clients understood that selling covered calls with protection is mathematically safer than naked buy-and-hold, the 60/40 portfolio would lose its mystique.
Options have risk. So do stocks. But the industry treats one as respectable and the other as dangerous, not because of the math, but because of the narrative.
Compliance Departments Hate Complexity
Even if your advisor personally believes in the Protected Wheel, their compliance department may forbid it. It’s easier to recommend safe mediocrity than defend intelligent aggression.
Compliance loves:
Index funds
Bonds
Target-date funds
Anything with a prospectus and a Morningstar rating
Compliance hates:
Weekly trading
Strategies they don’t understand
Anything clients might complain about later
The Industry Doesn’t Measure Success by Cash Flow
Advisors are evaluated on:
Portfolio returns vs. benchmarks
Assets under management growth
Client retention
They are NOT evaluated on:
Cash distributed to clients
Monthly income generated
Spending power sustained
If your portfolio grows 12% but you need income and have to sell shares, that’s considered success in their world. If your portfolio stays flat but generates $90,000 in spendable premiums, that looks like underperformance.
The metrics are rigged against income strategies.
It Threatens the Retirement Drawdown Model
The financial planning industry built an empire on the 4% rule:
Retire with $1,000,000
Withdraw $40,000/year
Hope it lasts 30 years
This model keeps assets invested (and fees flowing) for decades.
The Protected Wheel flips this:
Same $1,000,000
Generate $360,000/year in premiums
Spend what you need, reinvest the rest
This is a 9x income increase. It doesn’t need “safe withdrawal rate” calculators or Monte Carlo simulations. It just works.
If clients figure this out, the entire retirement planning industrial complex has a problem.
Your Advisor May Genuinely Not Know
This is not always malice or greed. Many advisors simply never learned options mechanics beyond “covered calls are a conservative income strategy” in their Series 7 exam.
They don’t know:
How to structure a collar
How to select deltas
How to manage weekly expirations
How volatility affects premium income
Their training focused on asset allocation, not income engineering. They recommend what they were taught, which is the same thing everyone else recommends.
What This Means for You
Option 1: Self-direct in an IRA or brokerage account. Execute the strategy yourself.
Option 2: Find a fee-only advisor who specializes in options strategies and will implement this for you (rare but they exist).
Option 3: Keep your traditional portfolio with your advisor for growth, and run the Protected Wheel separately for income.
You cannot expect your broker to recommend something that:
Shrinks their revenue
Requires weekly work
Challenges their compliance department
Outperforms their standard offerings by 8–10x
The Uncomfortable Truth
Tom never told Robert about the Protected Wheel because the system didn’t allow it.
Your advisor won’t tell you for the same reason.
The retirement income problem is solved. The math works. The strategy is repeatable.
But it will not be recommended by the institutions that profit from your account balance, not your cash flow.
This is why this book exists.
Chapter 3: The Case for SPY & QQQ Only
Most option losses come from one mistake: single-stock risk. Earnings gaps, fraud, lawsuits, dilution—none of these matter when you trade the market itself.
The traditional wheel sells puts, takes assignment, then sells calls. It works—until it doesn’t. The Protected Wheel removes the fatal flaw: unlimited downside.
Core Structure:
Buy 100 shares of SPY or QQQ
Buy a long-dated put (Jan 2027, 5–8% OTM)
Sell weekly out-of-the-money calls (20–30 delta)
Collect cash. Repeat.
This is a collar, run aggressively and systematically for income.
Chapter 5: Why Protection Changes Everything
Chapter 5: Why Protection Changes Everything
Without protection, retirees panic in drawdowns. Panic leads to bad decisions.
The long put:
Defines maximum loss
Allows consistent call selling during crashes
Converts fear into math
Breakevens typically sit 30–40% below current prices, depending on premiums collected.
This is not about avoiding losses. It’s about controlling them.
Chapter 6: Strategy Architecture: The Exact Mechanics
Chapter 6: Strategy Architecture: The Exact Mechanics
Richard was a software engineer at Google for twelve years. He understood systems. Logic. Architecture.
When he first read about the Retail Carry Trade, he did what every engineer does: he tried to optimize it.
“What if I sell puts AND calls?” “What if I use margin to double the position?” “What if I trade monthly options instead of weeklies for better premiums per trade?” “What if I add a third leg—maybe sell put spreads for extra income?”
He spent three months backtesting variations. Building spreadsheets. Running Monte Carlo simulations.
Then he talked to a former CBOE trader named Luis who’d been running this strategy since 2003.
Luis asked one question: “Why are you trying to fix something that already works?”
Richard didn’t have a good answer.
Luis continued: “The institutions that survived 2000, 2008, and 2020 didn’t survive because they got clever. They survived because they kept the structure simple and executed it with discipline. You want to know the secret? There is no secret. It’s boring as hell.”
Richard threw out his spreadsheet. Started over with the basic structure.
Three years later, his account was up $340,000.
He never touched the architecture again.
The Core Structure (No Modifications)
Luis showed Richard what hedge funds actually run:
Luis: “Because you’ll spend the last 6 months worried about rolling. 18-24 months gives you breathing room. You set it and forget it for a year.”
“Why not deeper OTM? Save more on cost?”
“Because 10-15% OTM puts barely move when the market drops 20%. You need meaningful protection. 5-8% OTM gives you real coverage without paying for paranoia.”
He wanted to sell 40-delta calls for more premium.
Luis shut it down: “You’ll get assigned every other week. You’ll spend half your time buying shares back and managing whipsaw. The goal isn’t maximum premium. It’s sustainable premium.”
20 delta:
~20% chance of assignment per week
More conservative
Less management
Better for volatile markets
30 delta:
~30% chance of assignment per week
More aggressive
Higher income
Better for calm markets
Richard settled on 25-delta as his standard. Adjusted to 20 in high-vol environments, 30 in low-vol.
Friday expiration:
Maximum time decay
Weekly settlement
Predictable rhythm
No mid-week surprises
What Richard Learned: No Forecasting
Richard’s biggest mistake early on: trying to predict the market.
“SPY looks strong this week, I’ll sell the 30-delta.” “Market feels toppy, I’ll skip this week and wait for a pullback.” “VIX is low, I’ll sell closer to maximize premium.”
Every time he deviated from the system, he made less money.
Luis explained it like this:
“You’re not a forecaster. You’re a factory. Every week, the factory produces the same thing: premium income. You don’t shut down the factory because you think next month might be better. You run it. Every. Single. Week.”
Richard started tracking his results:
Weeks he followed the system blindly: +37% annualized Weeks he “optimized” based on market view: +22% annualized
The discipline produced better results than the intelligence.
The Exact Entry Checklist
Luis gave Richard a checklist. Richard put it on his wall.
BEFORE ENTERING ANY POSITION:
☐ I have $XXX,XXX in cash available ☐ I will buy only 100-share blocks (not 50, not 150, not “as much as I can”) ☐ I will buy Jan 2027 puts (5-8% OTM) on DAY ONE ☐ I will sell my first weekly call AFTER protection is in place ☐ I will commit to selling calls EVERY WEEK for at least 6 months ☐ I will not modify the structure based on “market feelings”
If you can’t check every box, don’t start.
The Weekly Execution Ritual
Richard now runs this strategy on $650,000 (400 SPY shares + 200 QQQ shares).
His weekly routine:
Monday 9:45 AM PT (after market open):
Check Friday’s expirations (did calls expire worthless or get assigned?)
If assigned: immediately repurchase shares, move to next step
Pull up options chain for this Friday’s expiration
Identify 20-30 delta strikes
Monday 10:00-11:00 AM PT:
Sell calls on any green candles (market up = better premiums)
If market is red, wait until Tuesday
Enter limit orders slightly above mid-price
Wait for fills
Monday 11:30 AM PT:
Record trades in spreadsheet
Update weekly premium tracker
Done
Total time spent: 45 minutes per week.
What “No Indicators” Actually Means
Richard used to check:
Moving averages
RSI
MACD
Volume
News headlines
Earnings calendars
Luis told him to stop.
“Those things matter for directional trading. You’re not directional trading. You’re selling time. Time decays whether RSI is overbought or not.”
Richard deleted his TradingView subscription.
He now checks exactly two things:
What’s the 20-30 delta strike for this Friday?
Is the market open?
If the answer to #2 is yes, he executes #1.
That’s it.
The Assignment Protocol (When Shares Get Called Away)
This is where most retail traders panic.
Richard’s shares got called away 14 times in his first year.
Each time, he followed the same script Luis gave him:
Friday 4:00 PM ET: Shares called away at strike price
Monday 9:30 AM ET:
Repurchase same number of shares at market price
Immediately sell next Friday’s calls (20-30 delta)
Record the trade
Move on
Do NOT:
Wait for a “better price”
Try to buy “the dip”
Skip a week
Change the structure
When shares are called away, you made money. The premium is yours. The capital gain (if any) is yours.
Repurchase immediately. Resume the cycle.
Richard’s average time from assignment to resumption: 8 minutes.
The Annual Maintenance (Rolling Protection)
Every December, Richard rolls his long puts forward.
December 2026 example:
His Jan 2027 SPY 380 puts (purchased in Jan 2025 for $18/share) are now worth ~$8/share (time decay + market changes).
He:
Sells the Jan 2027 380 puts → collects $8/share ($2,400 total)
Buys Jan 2028 370 puts (5-8% OTM at current SPY price) → pays $16/share ($4,800 total)
Net cost to roll: $2,400
This cost is covered by 3-4 weeks of premium (~$800/week)
Protection is now extended another year.
This happens once per year. Takes 10 minutes. Keeps the structure intact.
What Richard Stopped Doing (The Real Breakthroughs)
After year one, Richard made a list of everything he’d stopped:
✗ Stopped reading market commentary ✗ Stopped watching CNBC ✗ Stopped checking his portfolio multiple times per day ✗ Stopped “waiting for better setups” ✗ Stopped trying to predict FOMC reactions ✗ Stopped optimizing strike selection based on “technical levels” ✗ Stopped caring whether the market went up or down
He started:
✓ Selling calls every Monday ✓ Recording premiums in a spreadsheet ✓ Rolling puts once per year ✓ Spending 45 minutes per week on execution ✓ Sleeping through volatility
His account grew faster when he did less.
The Architecture Is the Edge
Luis explained it to Richard like this:
“Every retail trader wants a secret. A hack. An edge nobody else has. But the real edge in this strategy isn’t what you do—it’s what you DON’T do.”
You don’t:
Forecast
Trade earnings
Use indicators
Time the market
Modify the structure
Get clever
You just:
Own shares
Buy protection
Sell weekly calls
Repeat
The edge is that this structure has a positive expectancy over time because short-term implied volatility is persistently mispriced.
Institutions figured this out 30 years ago.
Richard figured it out by stopping everything else.
The Bottom Line
Shares: Long 100-share blocks only (no leverage, no margin, no games)
Puts: Jan 2027, 5–8% OTM, rolled annually (protection is non-negotiable)
Calls: Weekly expirations, 20–30 delta, sold every week (the income engine)
Objective: Cash flow first, upside second (this is not a growth strategy)
Rules: No forecasting. No indicators. No hero trades. (boring = profitable)
Richard’s results after 3 years:
Starting capital: $650,000
Current value: $990,000
Cash withdrawn: $285,000
Total gain: $625,000 (96% return)
Time spent per week: 45 minutes
The architecture is simple. The execution is boring. The results are exceptional.
This is why hedge funds don’t change it.
This is why you shouldn’t either.
Chapter 7: Strike Selection, Deltas, and Timing
Chapter 7: Strike Selection, Deltas, and Timing
Jennifer had been trading options for six months when she made her first real mistake.
She’d been selling 20-delta calls on SPY every week. Making $700-800 consistently. The system was working.
Then she read an article about “maximizing option income” that said she was leaving money on the table.
“Why sell 20-delta when you could sell 35-delta and make $1,100?”
The article made sense. More premium = more income. Simple math.
She switched to 35-delta calls.
Week 1: Made $1,150. Felt like a genius. Week 2: Called away at $442. SPY closed at $448. Missed $600 in upside. Week 3: Bought back at $448. Sold 35-delta calls at $458. Called away at $458. SPY closed at $463. Week 4: Bought back at $463. Sold 35-delta calls at $473. Called away at $473. SPY closed at $479.
By week 4, she’d been assigned three times. Each time, she bought shares back at higher prices. Her cost basis kept rising. Her cash kept shrinking to cover the repurchases.
After 8 weeks of “maximizing income,” her net result: -$4,200.
She called her friend Marcus, who’d been running this strategy for four years.
Marcus laughed. “You got greedy. Welcome to the club. Let me explain deltas.”
What Delta Actually Means (Plain English)
Marcus drew it out for Jennifer on a napkin at a coffee shop.
“Delta is the probability of finishing in the money at expiration. That’s it.”
20 delta = ~20% chance the call finishes in the money (gets assigned)
30 delta = ~30% chance the call finishes in the money
40 delta = ~40% chance the call finishes in the money
“When you sell a 35-40 delta call, you’re saying ‘I want more premium, and I’m willing to get assigned 35-40% of the time.’ That works great in a sideways or down market. But in an uptrend? You’ll get assigned every other week. And every time you get assigned, you’re buying shares back higher and restarting the cycle.”
Jennifer got it immediately. “So lower delta = less premium but fewer assignments?”
“Exactly. And in retirement income strategies, consistency beats optimization.“
The 20-Delta Sweet Spot
Marcus ran the numbers for Jennifer over three years:
20-delta strategy:
Average premium per week: $720
Assignment rate: ~22% (once every 4-5 weeks)
Annual premium collected: ~$37,000
Time spent managing assignments: minimal
Emotional stress: low
35-delta strategy:
Average premium per week: $1,080
Assignment rate: ~38% (twice per month)
Annual premium collected: ~$34,000 (less due to assignment friction)
Time spent managing assignments: high
Emotional stress: high
Wait—the 20-delta made MORE annually despite lower weekly premium?
“Yep,” Marcus said. “Because you’re not constantly chasing your position. You stay in the trade. The premiums compound. The 35-delta people are always buying back shares, paying spreads, missing upside, restarting. They think they’re making more, but they’re just churning.”
The 30-Delta Aggressive Variant
“So should I always do 20?” Jennifer asked.
“Depends on the market regime. I use 30-delta in low-volatility, choppy markets. When the VIX is below 15 and SPY is just grinding sideways, 30-delta makes sense. You’re getting paid more, and the market’s not going anywhere anyway.”
Marcus’s rule:
VIX < 15: Use 30-delta (market calm, maximize income) VIX 15-25: Use 25-delta (neutral positioning) VIX > 25: Use 20-delta (market volatile, play defense)
“The key is this: you’re not trying to predict the market. You’re adapting to current conditions.“
When to Sell: Timing Matters
Jennifer made another mistake in her first six months: she’d sell calls Friday afternoon after expiration.
Marcus told her to stop immediately.
“Friday afternoon is the worst time to sell next week’s calls. Why?”
Jennifer didn’t know.
“Because time decay on Friday options is mostly done. You’re selling an option with 7 days to expiration, but it’s priced like it has 6.5 days. The theta is already half-burned.”
Better timing:
Monday morning (after 9:45 AM ET): Fresh theta. Full week of decay ahead. Usually better premiums.
Tuesday morning (if you missed Monday): Still solid.
Wednesday morning (if you missed both): Acceptable but not ideal.
Friday: Only if you absolutely have to. Premiums will be lower.
Green Day vs. Red Day Execution
Marcus showed Jennifer his execution log.
“Look at these two days. Same week. Same strike. Different fill prices.”
Monday (SPY up 0.8% at open):
Sold SPY 7-day 450 calls (25-delta)
Premium: $4.20 per share
Tuesday (SPY down 0.6% at open):
Tried to sell SPY 7-day 450 calls (now 22-delta after the drop)
Premium: $3.10 per share
“Same strike. One day apart. $110 difference per contract.”
The rule: Sell on green days when possible.
Why? Because implied volatility compresses when the market goes up. But actual option prices often stay elevated for a few hours. You get the best of both: higher underlying price AND decent premium.
On red days, wait. Unless it’s Wednesday and you need to get the trade on, don’t chase premiums on down days.
Rolling vs. Letting Go (The Hardest Decision)
Jennifer got assigned on her SPY calls at $445. SPY was trading at $449.
She asked Marcus: “Should I roll the calls up and out? I could buy back the $445 calls and sell $452 calls for next week. That way I keep the shares.”
Marcus’s answer surprised her.
“Why? What’s special about these shares?”
“Well… they’re my shares. I don’t want to lose them.”
“Jennifer, SPY at $445 is identical to SPY at $449. There are no ‘special’ shares. If you get assigned, take the premium, take the capital gain, and repurchase Monday morning. Don’t get emotionally attached to share lots.”
Rolling is almost never worth it.
Why?
You pay the bid-ask spread twice (once to close, once to open)
You tie yourself to a higher strike (less premium next week)
You delay the inevitable if SPY keeps running
You waste time managing instead of executing
The only time Marcus rolls:
“If I’m assigned on a Tuesday or Wednesday—mid-week expiration for some reason—I’ll roll to Friday. But if it’s Friday? Let it go. Repurchase Monday. Sell the next call. Move on.”
The Strike Selection Formula
Marcus uses this every week:
Open the options chain for this Friday’s expiration
Look at the “Delta” column
Find the strike closest to 20-30 delta
Check the bid price
Sell if the bid is acceptable
“That’s it. No chart reading. No support and resistance. No ‘this strike feels better.’ Just: Where’s the 25-delta? Sell it.”
Jennifer tried to complicate it: “But what if the 25-delta is right at a major resistance level? Shouldn’t I sell the next strike up?”
Marcus shut it down. “Resistance levels are for directional traders. You’re not a directional trader. You’re a time-decay farmer. Just sell the 25-delta and move on.”
Never Sell Below Cost Basis (Unless Protected)
This is the one rule Marcus violates deliberately—but only because he has protection.
Jennifer asked: “What if my cost basis is $445, but SPY drops to $430? The 25-delta call is now at $437. Do I sell it even though it’s below my cost basis?”
Marcus: “Yes. Because you have a Jan 2027 put at $415. Your real cost basis isn’t $445—it’s $415. Everything above that is buffer. So selling a $437 call is still $22 above your true floor.”
Without protection, never sell below cost basis. You’re locking in losses.
With protection, you can sell anywhere above your put strike. Because your real breakeven is the put, not your share entry price.
This is why protection changes everything. It gives you operational flexibility during drawdowns.
The Tuesday Assignment Trap
Jennifer got assigned on a Tuesday once. Not a Friday. She’d sold a monthly call that expired mid-week.
She panicked. “Do I buy back immediately?”
Marcus: “Yes. And stop selling monthly options. This is why we use weeklies. Weekly options expire Friday. You know exactly when assignment happens. Monthlies expire on random Wednesdays and Tuesdays. It’s just more complexity.”
Stick to Friday expirations. Always.
What Jennifer Does Now (2 Years Later)
Jennifer runs $420,000 across SPY and QQQ.
Her Monday morning routine:
9:45 AM ET: Market opens 9:50 AM ET: Check if SPY/QQQ are green 9:55 AM ET: If green, sell 25-delta calls for this Friday 10:00 AM ET: Record trade, close laptop
If red, she waits until Tuesday.
She no longer:
Checks charts
Reads analyst notes
Worries about “optimal” strikes
Tries to roll positions
Sells on red days
Sells below 20-delta or above 30-delta
Deviates from the system
Her results:
Year 1: $34,200 premium income (learning phase, made mistakes)
Year 2: $41,800 premium income (disciplined execution)
Year 3: $47,300 premium income (added capital + higher volatility)
The less she thought, the more she made.
The Rules (Printed on Marcus’s Wall)
STRIKE SELECTION:
20-delta when VIX > 25
25-delta standard
30-delta when VIX < 15
TIMING:
Sell Monday morning if possible
Sell on green days
Avoid Fridays unless necessary
ASSIGNMENT:
Let shares go
Repurchase Monday
Don’t roll (99% of the time)
Never chase
NEVER:
Sell below cost basis (unless protected)
Sell above 35-delta
Sell on emotion
Deviate without reason
The Bottom Line
Selling too close (40+ delta) caps upside and creates constant assignment churn.
Selling too far (10-delta) starves income and wastes opportunity.
20-30 delta is the institutional standard for a reason: It balances income, assignment risk, and operational simplicity.
Jennifer learned this the expensive way.
You don’t have to.
Rules:
Sell calls on green days when possible
Roll only if assignment damages structure (rarely)
Never sell below cost basis unless covered by protection
Marcus’s last piece of advice to Jennifer:
“The goal isn’t to get every dollar out of every trade. The goal is to run a system that works for 30 years. Boring beats clever. Every single time.”
Jennifer’s account agrees.
Chapter 8: Cash Flow Math: Where 30–45% Comes From
Chapter 8: Cash Flow Math: Where 30–45% Comes From
Typical weekly call premiums:
SPY: 0.5–0.7% per week
QQQ: 0.7–1.0% per week
Annualized:
SPY: ~30–35%
QQQ: ~40–45%
Premiums pay for the put. Excess becomes spendable income.
Chapter 9: SPY vs QQQ: Risk, Reward, and Allocation
Recommended blend:
60–70% SPY (stability)
30–40% QQQ (income boost)
This balances volatility while keeping income high.
Chapter 10: Market Regimes: Bull, Bear, Sideways
Chapter 10: Market Regimes: Bull, Bear, Sideways
Bull: Income lags buy-and-hold, but remains strong
Do not exit in panic. Exits should be planned, not reactive.
Modification Scenarios
Capital increase: Add proportional SPY/QQQ blocks
Capital decrease: Reduce positions proportionally
Volatility regime change: Adjust delta range (lower delta in high vol, higher delta in low vol)
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Compliance-Safe Language for Advisors
If you are a financial advisor presenting this strategy to clients, use the following framing:
“This is an income-focused collar strategy utilizing broad market ETFs. It prioritizes cash flow generation through systematic covered call writing, with downside protection via long-dated puts. Expected outcomes include reduced volatility relative to buy-and-hold equity, with income yields in the 30–45% range under normal market conditions. Upside participation is capped. This strategy is suitable for income-focused investors with moderate to high risk tolerance who understand options mechanics.”
Key disclosures to include:
Options involve substantial risk and are not suitable for all investors
Past performance does not guarantee future results
Premium income is not guaranteed and fluctuates with market volatility
Strategy may underperform in strong bull markets
Tax implications vary by account type and individual circumstances
Appendix B: Broker Requirements and Platform Setup
Minimum Broker Requirements
Level 3 options approval: Required for covered calls and protective puts
Commission structure: Low or zero commissions on options (critical for weekly trading)
Platform features needed:
Real-time quotes
Options chains with Greeks visible
One-click covered call entry
Mobile access for weekly management
Test the platform with paper trading before committing capital.
In this analysis, we explore the projected performance of four prominent stocks—Palantir, Nvidia, SoFi, and Tesla—amidst concerns over tariffs and recession fears. The commentary provides insight into recent developments for each company and discusses investment strategies based on current market conditions.
Outline
Introduction
Palantir Technologies (PLTR)
Current Stock Performance
Recent Developments
Earnings Outlook
Investment Strategy
Nvidia Corporation (NVDA)
Stock Volatility and Market Position
Revenue Impact from China
Strategic Insights
Investment Stance
SoFi Technologies, Inc. (SOFI)
Business Overview and Market Capitalization
Revenue Growth and Profitability
Customer Growth Strategy
Long-term Outlook
Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)
Upcoming Earnings Report
Stock Stability and Market Operations
Global Expansion Initiatives
Investment Perspective
Archer Aviation Inc. (ACHR)
Recent Funding and Financial Position
Market Developments
Future Outlook
Conclusion
Key Insights
This video offers a robust examination of stock performance in relation to macroeconomic factors. The analysis emphasizes a proactive investment approach centered on understanding each company’s fundamentals and market dynamics.
1. Introduction
The video serves as an investment briefing focused on four stocks likely to be affected by upcoming economic conditions, particularly relating to tariffs and fears of recession. The presenter aims to provide insights based purely on research and relevant developments without the distractions of master classes or webinars.
2. Palantir Technologies (PLTR)
Current Stock Performance
Palantir is currently priced at $93.50 and has shown resilience amidst market volatility, effectively bouncing back from a low of around $75. The stock’s upward trajectory suggests a strong support level at $75, with a potential resistance point near $100.
Recent Developments
A significant announcement from NATO on April 14 regarding the acquisition of Palantir’s Maven Smart System—the AI-enabled military platform—has contributed positively to the stock, resulting in a 5% increase post-announcement. The potential earnings growth is significant, as Palantir has also begun collaborations with the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency to develop a unified API for the IRS.
Additionally, Palantir enhanced its AIP on April 10, allowing customers to integrate their own AI models into the Foundry system. This improvement could yield new revenue opportunities.
Earnings Outlook
Palantir is set to release its first-quarter 2025 earnings on May 5, 2025. Given the stock’s recent resilience, an optimistic earnings report could further elevate the stock price, while any significant pre-earnings sell-off could reflect typical market volatility.
Investment Strategy
The presenter expresses a bullish perspective on Palantir, seeing a potential entry point for investors under $90 per share, and suggests selling puts as a strategy to capitalize on price movement leading into earnings.
3. Nvidia Corporation (NVDA)
Stock Volatility and Market Position
Currently trading just above $101, Nvidia has experienced significant volatility, with stocks moving from $94 to over $110 before stabilizing. The market’s perception is influenced by external factors, such as revenue potential from China.
Revenue Impact from China
Nvidia faces challenges stemming from the U.S.’s export restrictions on advanced chips to China. While this market accounts for only about 10% of revenue, the nature of the blockade poses serious concerns for future growth and cash flow.
Strategic Insights
Despite this blockade, Nvidia has reduced its reliance on the Chinese market over the past few quarters, fostering a more robust outlook. The stock is perceived as reasonably priced, and the present valuation appears attractive for potential buyers.
Investment Stance
The presenter remains bullish on Nvidia, planning to invest substantially at the current levels, given the rapid market reaction to troubling news, which may already be factored into the current stock price.
4. SoFi Technologies, Inc. (SOFI)
Business Overview and Market Capitalization
SoFi operates with a market cap of $12 billion, positioning itself for potential rapid growth. The stock recently exceeded $11, indicating a recovery phase post-major losses.
Revenue Growth and Profitability
In 2024, SoFi achieved impressive financial milestones, reporting a 26% revenue increase year-over-year and reaching its first profitable year. Guidance for 2025 is modest but reflects optimism for growth.
Customer Growth Strategy
SoFi is projected to add approximately 2.8 million members in 2025, enhancing customer lifetime value through its upsell model, where existing customers are encouraged to use more products.
Long-term Outlook
The growth strategy and holistic financial service model position SoFi for significant upward movement, especially as it aims to convert acquired customers into long-term users of multiple offered services, ultimately increasing overall profitability.
5. Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)
Upcoming Earnings Report
Tesla’s earnings are scheduled for April 22, 2025. However, the stock has displayed stable performance during a range-bound period, which suggests potential for covering put sales and related investment strategies.
Stock Stability and Market Operations
With strong support at approximately $226, Tesla’s recent operational launch in Saudi Arabia aims to enhance its footprint in a rapidly growing market for electric vehicles.
Global Expansion Initiatives
Tesla’s strategic investment into the Saudi market reflects an intention to capture growing demand amidst competition. The Saudi Vision 2030 initiative aligns with Tesla’s goals, indicating a favorable backdrop for potential sales boosts.
Investment Perspective
The current sentiment suggests that maintaining investments in Tesla via dollar-cost averaging could be beneficial, particularly as competition increases and new markets open.
6. Archer Aviation Inc. (ACHR)
Recent Funding and Financial Position
In February, Archer raised $300 million, enhancing liquidity and positioning itself for growth in the emerging eVTOL market.
Market Developments
Despite encountering market volatility, Archer’s advancements in electric vertical takeoff and landing technologies speak to its innovative edge and future potential within the aviation market.
Future Outlook
The upcoming period appears promising for Archer as it continues to secure funding and develop its offerings in the eVTOL sector.
7. Conclusion
The analysis lays a foundation for strategic investment choices in Palantir, Nvidia, SoFi, Tesla, and Archer, emphasizing a proactive approach tailored to the evolving market landscape. Each stock presents unique opportunities and risks, underscoring the importance of informed decision-making amid economic uncertainties. Ultimately, the video’s narrative encourages viewers to adopt prudent investment strategies designed to adapt to market fluctuations and capitalize on growth potential.
Summary
Summary
In this video, the speaker evaluates the stock performance of Palantir Technologies, Nvidia, SoFi, Tesla, and Archer as they navigate concerns over tariffs and recession fears. The analysis includes insights into upcoming earnings reports, stock volatility, market strategies, and bullish perspectives on these stocks, underscoring a focus on strategic investments amid fluctuating market conditions.
Highlights
Palantir Technologies has shown resilience with a recent stock price increase.
Nvidia is experiencing volatility due to external pressures, mainly from regulatory actions affecting its China market.
SoFi is projected for significant growth, backed by strong revenue performance and a comprehensive upsell strategy.
Tesla continues to stabilize, entering into new markets in Saudi Arabia.
Archer demonstrates potential growth opportunities following a successful capital raise.
Key Insights
Palantir Technologies
Current Price Trends: Trading around $93.50 after recovering from a low of $75. Palantir’s stock is projected to rise further, bolstered by positive developments.
Recent Acquisitions: Significant news includes NATO’s acquisition of Palantir’s Maven Smart System, enhancing battlefield operations using AI. This boosted the stock by 5%.
Government Contracts: Collaboration with the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency aims to develop a centralized API for the IRS, highlighting Palantir’s growing governmental ties.
AI Enhancements: Introduction of enhancements to their AIP will facilitate custom integrations for clients, showcasing the company’s commitment to innovation in data management.
Earnings Expectations: Anticipation for a strong first-quarter earnings report, casting the stock as a good pre-earnings buy. Current support at $75 is strong, with resistance seen around $98.
Nvidia
Stock Performance: Currently priced over $101, Nvidia has experienced substantial volatility, with concerns stemming from shifting markets and geopolitical pressures.
Revenue Risks: Challenges arise from restrictions on the sale of AI chips to China, impacting previous revenue streams, although the stock’s previous price has already factored in these risks.
Investment Positioning: The speaker is bullish on Nvidia, indicating readiness to invest significantly amid the prevailing uncertainties. The current pricing strategy of selling puts at the $100 mark reflects confidence in recovery.
Market Sentiment: Despite the blockade on revenue from China, Nvidia’s strategic shifts have reduced reliance on this market, positioning the company favorably for long-term growth.
SoFi
Growth Trajectory: With ambitions to grow its membership base significantly in 2025, SoFi is currently trading around $11 and aims to expand its services to deepen customer relationships.
Financial Milestones: The transition to profitability is highlighted by a 26% year-over-year increase in revenue, indicating robust business health.
Upsell Strategy: Focuses on creating value through diverse financial services under one roof, thus enhancing customer lifetime value—an essential factor for growth.
Earnings Outlook: The next earnings report is highly anticipated, with hopes of continued upward momentum in the stock’s performance expected post-announcement.
Tesla
Upcoming Earnings: Set to report on April 22, projections show that Tesla’s stock has stabilized recently after periods of volatility.
International Expansion: Startup operations in Saudi Arabia reflect strategic growth initiatives aligned with future market sustainability and expansion efforts in the electric vehicle sector.
Market Strategies: Investor sentiment appears positive as Tesla adapts to competition while taking substantial steps toward wider market penetration.
Valuation Indicators: Significant volume in purchases suggests a growing belief in Tesla’s future potential, recommending it as a buy or hold position amid a dollar-cost-averaging strategy.
ArcherPalantir, Nvidia, SoFi, and Tesla
Capital Development: A recent capital infusion of $300 million bolsters the company’s financial footing, aiding in the development of electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) technologies.
Stock Positioning: The speaker highlights a proactive investment approach through selling puts and taking on additional contracts as the company’s strategies unfold.
Future Growth: Despite market fluctuations, Archer’s strategic direction indicates promise for long-term growth potential.
Core Concepts
Market Volatility: Understanding and acting on market volatility are crucial for investment strategy formulation, especially in tech-driven sectors.
Crisis Preparedness: Companies that can pivot in response to tariffs and other regulatory hurdles appear more equipped for future profitability.
Long-Term Investment: The emphasis is on sustaining investments in companies seen as having transformative growth potentials, despite short-term fluctuations.
Earnings Reports: The upcoming earnings reports are pivotal for investor sentiment, setting the stage for potential stock rebounds.
Keywords
Market Volatility
Earnings Reports
Upsell Strategy
Investment Strategy
Electric Vehicles
FAQs
Why is Palantir expected to perform well in 2025?
Palantir is expected to benefit from significant government contracts and new AI platform enhancements, alongside strong market support.
What are the main concerns affecting Nvidia?
Nvidia faces revenue pressures due to U.S. restrictions impacting its sales opportunities in China, but it has reduced reliance on this market over time.
How is SoFi planning to increase its customer base?
SoFi’s strategy includes an aggressive upsell model to enhance customer lifetime value while expanding its existing member base significantly.
What does Tesla’s expansion into Saudi Arabia signify?
Tesla’s operations in Saudi Arabia indicate a strategic move towards capturing new markets while aligning with sustainable energy initiatives like Vision 2030.
What developments is Archer focusing on?
Archer is concentrating on advanced electric vehicle technologies, supported by a strong financial backing to enhance growth trajectories in the eVTOL sector.
In this video, the host, an average investor, recounts a tumultuous day of trading involving selling covered calls and shares their personal experiences and the emotional challenges faced during a volatile market swing. The turning point occurred when a surprise announcement from President Trump about a pause on tariffs caused the market to surge unexpectedly. The narrative focuses on the mistakes made when rolling covered calls, analyzing the consequences of the decisions taken amid sudden price shifts. The investor emphasizes the importance of having a strategy and adhering to rules, particularly during unpredictable market conditions, while encouraging viewers to share their own experiences in the comments.
Highlights
📈 Unforeseen Market Dynamics: A market surge after an unexpected announcement created panic for covered call sellers.
🤔 Decision-Making Challenges: The emotional aspect of trading is highlighted as investors struggle to stick to strategies in turbulent market conditions.
🤑 Rolling Strategies: The investor discusses various rolling strategies and their impact on overall performance.
📊 Portfolio Performance: A mix of net debits showcases the complexities of managing a trading portfolio amidst volatility.
📉 Emotional Resilience: The need for emotional control is stressed, especially when facing unexpected market changes.
🗨️ Viewer Engagement: The host invites viewer feedback, aiming to develop a community discussion around trading experiences.
Key Insights
📊 Market Surprises Can Be Costly: The host experienced a severe loss due to a sudden market upturn driven by external factors. This underscores the unpredictability of financial markets and how external news can impact investment strategies instantaneously.
🔄 Importance of Rolling Strategies: The options strategy of rolling covered calls can lead to unexpected outcomes. The analysis of different strike prices reveals that sticking with a previous position (holding the line) could have been more beneficial than rolling further away from the original strike price.
⚖️ Emotional Decision-Making: The trader highlights the critical role emotions play in investing. When markets change rapidly, even experienced traders can find it difficult to adhere to their established rules and strategies, leading to regrettable decisions.
🤔 Benefits of Diligence with Covered Calls: Despite the chaos on that trading day, selling covered calls usually proves to be a strategy that benefits investors. However, this incident reveals the necessity of maintaining a consistent approach even when faced with adverse conditions.
📉 The Importance of a Trading Plan: The video emphasizes that having a predefined strategy is essential for navigating market volatility. The absence of a strong plan often leaves traders vulnerable to reckless decisions driven by fear or greed when unexpected events arise.
💰 Cash Flow Management: The investor’s cash flow figures and net debits demonstrate that successful trading requires balancing immediate gains against potential losses. Continuous monitoring of cash flow can help mitigate risks over time.
📅 Learning Opportunities from Mistakes: The experience is framed as a vital learning moment. It shows that every trading mistake can serve as a lesson, reinforcing best practices that traders should follow moving forward.
In summary, the video provides valuable insights into the complexities of selling covered calls and how market volatility can deeply affect individual trading strategies. It pushes the idea that emotional stability and strict adherence to trading rules can lead to better outcomes in challenging market environments. By sharing personal experiences, the host not only educates viewers about the realities of trading but also invites a collaborative discussion on best practices among fellow traders.Based on the provided text, several key conclusions and recommendations can be derived from the experience of the speaker regarding their strategies for selling covered calls during a period of extreme market volatility.
Key Conclusions:
Market Response to Events: The drastic rise in market prices due to an unexpected announcement underscores that external factors can significantly impact market dynamics. One moment the market appears stable, and the next, it can surge, leading to potentially unfavorable outcomes for options strategies.
Timing and Decision Making: There are numerous alternatives when managing covered calls; however, making decisions amid market disruptions can be particularly challenging. The speaker reflects on various rolling strategies illustrating that sometimes, acting conservatively might lead to better outcomes.
Emotional Influence on Trading Decisions: The emotional strain during high-volatility situations can cloud judgment and lead to less rational trading decisions. The speaker cites regret over not adhering to predetermined rules during this tumultuous time.
Profit and Loss Management: Despite experiencing a net debit due to poor decision-making, the speaker’s portfolio still performed relatively well. This highlights the importance of assessing overall portfolio performance rather than focusing solely on isolated transactions.
Learning from Experience: Every trading experience provides an opportunity to learn. The significant volatility faced in this instance serves as a lesson for better future decision-making and risk management strategies.
Recommendations:
Establish and Rigorously Follow Trading Rules: Having a set of rules for when to roll positions or hold them can provide a framework for making decisions, especially during emotional times. The speaker emphasizes the importance of adhering to these rules even when faced with unexpected market movements.
Consider Sitting on the Sidelines: There are times when being inactive in the market may be the wisest choice. The speaker suggests there’s no shame in avoiding trades during particularly volatile periods.
Evaluate Expected Income Structures: Traders should reassess their expectations and limits regarding income from selling calls. Maintaining modest income goals could prevent overextending oneself into larger risks that could lead to significant loss.
Regularly Reassess Strategies: As market conditions change, it’s essential to reevaluate strategies to ensure they remain relevant. This includes analyzing how previous moves could have been better handled with the benefit of hindsight.
Engage with Combined Learning: Community engagement can help broaden perspectives on risk management strategies. Sharing experiences and learning from others can equip traders with diverse viewpoints on handling extreme market fluctuations.
In summary, the narrative illustrates the complexity of trading strategies like covered calls in volatile environments and emphasizes the necessity for well-founded rules, a cautious approach to market engagement, and the opportunity for growth from challenging trading experiences.
1. How might external factors like economic indicators or geopolitical events specifically alter one’s strategy for selling covered calls during periods of volatility?
NoteGPT
External factors, such as economic indicators and geopolitical events, can significantly influence one’s strategy for selling covered calls, particularly during periods of heightened market volatility. The text highlights how a sudden announcement from President Trump led to an unexpected surge in market prices, demonstrating the unpredictable nature of financial markets. The speaker’s experience provides insight into how such events can alter trading strategies.
Impact of Economic Indicators:
Market Sentiment Shifts: Economic indicators, such as unemployment rates, GDP growth, or inflation metrics, can sway investor sentiment. A positive economic report might lead to a bullish market, making previously set strike prices feel inadequate. In this scenario, sellers of covered calls might encounter increasing volatility, requiring them to reassess their positions more frequently.
Volatility Adjustments: High implied volatility can drive premium prices for options, which can make selling covered calls more attractive. However, if unexpected economic data emerges and shifts the market quickly, the volatility assumptions may no longer hold, forcing traders to consider more conservative strategies, such as lowering strike prices or rolling to different options to mitigate potential losses.
Influence of Geopolitical Events:
Sudden Market Movements: As described in the text, the announcement of a 90-day pause on tariffs triggered a rapid market increase. Such geopolitical events can cause immediate market reactions that are difficult to predict, leading traders to scramble to adjust their strategies in real time. This necessitates a more agile approach to trading, as quick adjustments often become paramount.
Risk Management Enhancements: Geopolitical instability can increase overall market uncertainty and risk. Traders may choose to mitigate risk by selecting more conservative strike prices for covered calls or by implementing strategies that allow them to maintain greater liquidity. In such circumstances, sitting on the sidelines temporarily may prove beneficial rather than making hasty decisions that could amplify losses.
Adaptability of Strategy:
Rolling Strategies: The speaker contemplated various strategies, such as rolling existing positions to different strike prices based on market conditions. More frequently, traders might need to adapt their rolling strategies in light of unexpected events, prompting reassessment of potential roll outcomes as market conditions evolve rapidly.
Psychological Factors: Finally, external factors also heighten emotional responses to market changes. The speaker expressed feelings of regret for not sticking to a plan amid shock at rising prices. Having defined rules for trading helps combat emotional decisions, which can lead to suboptimal outcomes during volatile times induced by external factors. Strategies should include guidelines on emotional management and decision-making processes to help traders adhere to their original plans.
In summary, economic indicators and geopolitical events can dramatically shift market dynamics, prompting covered call sellers to adapt their strategies. Being responsive to these alterations, employing risk management techniques, and maintaining emotional discipline are essential for success in trading, especially during heightened periods of market volatility.
what about covering with puts
NoteGPT
Covering with puts is a strategy that involves using put options to hedge against potential losses while holding a portfolio of stocks, thereby providing a protective mechanism, especially in volatile market conditions. This contrasts with selling covered calls, which generates income from premiums received but can expose the investor to losses if the stock price significantly increases. Here are some considerations regarding covering with puts based on the context of the provided text content.
Understanding the Strategy:
Hedging Against Downside Risk: By purchasing puts, investors can protect their stock holdings from declining prices. If the market experiences a downturn, the put options gain value, offsetting the losses incurred in the underlying stock. In the volatile scenario described, where market prices spiked rapidly, having puts could allow for greater peace of mind, as they would act as a safety net during unexpected market swings.
Complementary to Covered Calls: Selling covered calls generates income but does not protect against downturns. Conversely, combining this strategy with puts can enhance the overall risk management framework. While generated premiums from selling calls can help cushion losses, puts can further enhance protection against sharp drops in stock price—potentially offering a balanced approach during uncertain economic or geopolitical climates.
Managing Implied Volatility: Implied volatility typically influences options pricing. During high volatility periods, put premiums can be more expensive, but they could be valuable in protecting against larger price swings. The example described in the text illustrates a significant market jump due to an external announcement, demonstrating how swiftly sentiment can shift. A proactive approach to buying puts during such periods might allow investors to capitalize on increased volatility by locking in protection even when stock valuations are rising.
Strategic Adjustments:
Dynamic Adjustments Based on Market Conditions: The speaker’s experience emphasizes the importance of flexibility in strategy. Instead of relying solely on selling covered calls or on managing existing positions, an investor might alternately consider adding puts strategically to form a well-rounded approach. Adjustments can be driven by market indicators, demand for protection, and personal risk tolerance.
Reassessing Strike Prices and Expiration Dates: When employing put options, choosing the right strike price and expiration date is crucial. They should align with the investor’s risk management ethos and expectations about the underlying stock’s performance. A well-timed purchase of puts could mitigate losses and create opportunities for near-term gains depending on the volatility of market conditions.
Evaluating Emotional Responses: The emotional aspect of trading is highlighted in the text, particularly when unexpected market movements occur. Selling puts alongside calls offers a more comprehensive risk appetite, which can alleviate stress during market fluctuations. Knowing there is a hedge in place can contribute to a more rational decision-making process during emotional moments.
Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Premium Paid for Puts: While puts offer protection, they come at a cost. Investors should weigh the protection they provide against the premiums paid. During high volatility, these costs may be substantial, which can impact the overall profitability when combined with options strategies.
Long-Term vs. Short-Term Strategies: Consideration of long-term strategies versus short-term positions also plays a role in whether to employ puts. Long periods of volatility may warrant more extensive hedges, while short-term swings can perhaps rely solely on covered call strategies or holding positions without additional hedges.
In conclusion, covering with puts represents a viable strategy for managing risk while engaged in selling covered calls. It not only provides protective measures against adverse movements in stock prices but also facilitates more informed decision-making during turbulent market conditions. A thoughtful integration of these strategies can help balance income generation while offering a safeguard against downside risks, ultimately enriching an investor’s toolkit in navigating complex market environments.
what about buying 18 month longputs deep in the money and selling weekly call all premium for income and o risk
NoteGPT
Buying long puts that are deep in-the-money while simultaneously selling weekly call options can present a unique opportunities for generating income with reduced risk exposure. This strategy entails establishing a protective insurance policy on the underlying asset (through the long puts) while attempting to earn income from the premiums received by selling calls. Here’s an in-depth look at how this approach may work, along with considerations to keep in mind.
Mechanics of the Strategy
Deep In-the-Money Long Puts:
Purchasing deep in-the-money puts provides substantial intrinsic value, acting as a strong hedge against the decline in the underlying assets’ price. If the market experiences negative movements—similar to the drastic jumps noted in the text when the market moved 11-12% in one day—the long puts would gain significant value, thereby protecting the overall portfolio.
The extended duration of 18 months on these puts provides ample time to benefit from protection amidst certain adverse market conditions or events, allowing for adjusted strategies over an extended period without the pressure of short-term expiration dates.
Selling Weekly Calls:
Selling weekly calls can generate income through the premiums received, creating a consistent cash flow. The attractiveness of selling calls lies primarily in the opportunity for regular income generation, allowing the investor to capitalize on upward price movements in the underlying asset to gather additional funds.
In conjunction with long puts, this approach can provide a balanced risk-reward scenario. While the long puts protect against significant downward movements, the income generated from selling calls can offset the costs of buying the puts and potentially enhance profitability.
Risk Management
Limiting Downside Exposure:
The puts serve to limit downside risk. If the market responds unpredictably, like the abrupt market shift recounted in the example—where the speaker’s position may have been adversely affected—holding a put option enables the investor to sell the stock at a predetermined price, thereby preventing further losses.
This is particularly important in volatile markets, as the shock of sudden economic announcements, as seen in the speaker’s scenario, can lead to significant movements that would otherwise adversely affect an investor lacking protective hedges.
Capping Upside Potential:
While the strategy allows for potential premiums, it does cap potential upside gains. If the underlying asset appreciates beyond the strike price of the sold calls, the investor may miss out on further appreciation. However, with a strategic approach to selecting call strike prices—ideally placing them at levels above expected resistance—the upside can be limited while still capturing gains.
Emotional and Strategic Considerations
Emotional Discipline:
Like the challenges faced by the speaker—where emotional decision-making clouded judgment—this strategy necessitates maintaining discipline and sticking to predetermined rules. Emotional reactions to market fluctuations can lead to hasty decisions, such as selling or rolling positions that may be counterproductive in the long run.
Selecting the Right Strike Prices:
Investors must carefully assess and choose the strike prices for the puts and calls. The selected strikes should align with market forecasts, but they should also allow for a margin of safety while leveraging income potential. This requires careful analysis of market indicators and volatility to accurately gauge potential movements.
Frequent Monitoring and Adjustments:
Given market unpredictability, continuous monitoring of the positions is essential. The exemplified volatility can require quick adjustments to strike prices on sold calls or rolling puts based on market performance. Maintaining flexibility and being informed about market news is critical to optimizing this strategy.
Conclusion
In summary, buying long puts that are deep in-the-money and selling weekly calls can form an effective strategy to generate income while managing risk. This approach leverages the upside from premiums while providing robust protection against downside risks. However, it’s vital to conduct continuous monitoring of market conditions, maintain emotional discipline, and implement well-planned strike price strategies to fully realize the potential of this dual-option trading strategy. The key lies in balancing the income potential against the risks involved, enabling a more secure trading approach amidst market fluctuations.
In this analysis of high-yield investment funds, the author discusses various business development companies (BDCs) and income-generating funds, highlighting their performance and yield. The focus is on the Blackstone Secured Lending Fund (BXL) and its performance compared to other BDCs, as well as Funds such as PBDC, RQI, PFFA, and MLPA that invest in other income-generating sectors like real estate investment trusts (REITs) and preferred stocks. The piece emphasizes the benefits of diversified investment strategies and the importance of monitoring market conditions when considering investments in these funds.
Highlights
BXL has outperformed with a total return of 28% and a yield above 10%.
PBDC allows investors to gain exposure to 21 actively managed BDCs, outperforming the S&P 500 since inception.
REIT RQI offers over an 8% yield but has a history of fluctuating distributions.
PFFA is a preferred stock fund yielding almost 10%, providing stability even during market downturns.
MLPA provides exposure to midstream energy companies, which consistently pay distributions.
Closed-end funds like CFS yield above 8%, but their fees may affect returns.
The author emphasizes diversification in high-yield sectors to better manage risk.
Key Insights
BXL’s Performance: The performance of the Blackstone Secured Lending Fund suggests that actively managed funds can yield higher returns compared to a passive investment in BDCs. The 28% total return reflects not only price appreciation but also income generated from dividends.
PBDC’s Strategy: PBDC stands apart from other BDC funds due to its active management approach, which allows the fund manager to adapt to market changes and focus on undervalued securities, thereby yielding better returns throughout its inception.
Challenges with REITs: The historical performance of RQI illustrates the impact of economic downturns on dividends, revealing the risk that comes attached to real estate investments, especially in times of high interest rates.
Preferred Stocks Stability: Preferred stocks, as exemplified by PFFA, can provide better stability in dividend distributions, making them attractive to income-focused investors, despite their sensitivity to interest rate changes.
Midstream Sector Opportunities: Investing in midstream companies via MLPA allows investors to partake in the stable income generated by oil and gas transportation and processing without direct exposure to commodity price volatility.
Fees of Fund of Funds: CFS’s structure as a fund of funds comes with inherent fees that could diminish returns, encouraging individual stock selection in closed-end funds for potentially higher net gains.
Diversification Importance: The author advocates for diversification through various income-generating securities, emphasizing better risk management and exposure to multiple revenue streams in a fluctuating economy.
Outline
Introduction
Overview of investment environment and fund evaluations.
Blackstone Secured Lending Fund (BXL)
Performance metrics: 28% total return and over 10% yield.
PBDC Fund
Actively managed strategy focusing on BDCs.
Comparison to passive funds like BIZD.
Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)
Analyzing RQI’s yield and historical distribution challenges.
Market considerations with regard to interest rates.
Preferred Stock Funds
Discussing PFFA and its favorable dividend environment amid market volatility.
Midstream Investment
Analysis of MLPA’s yield and its significance in an oil and gas market context.
Closed-End Funds Evaluation
Discussion on CFS and the implications of management fees.
Conclusion
Recap of key investment strategies and encouragement to diversify within high-yield sectors.
Keywords
Business Development Company (BDC)
Yield
Active Management
Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)
Preferred Stock
Midstream
Closed-End Fund
FAQs
Q1: What is the performance of the Blackstone Secured Lending Fund (BXL)? A1: BXL has provided a 28% total return over the past year with a yield of over 10%.
Q2: How does PBDC differ from BIZD? A2: PBDC is actively managed, focusing on undervalued BDCs, while BIZD is a passive index fund.
Q3: What challenges do REITs face in the current market? A3: REITs face challenges with fluctuating interest rates that impact their distribution capabilities, as well as historical performance issues during economic downturns.
Q4: Why are preferred stocks considered stable investments? A4: Preferred stocks, like those in PFFA, often maintain consistent dividends even during market downturns, providing more security for investors.
Q5: What are the risks associated with closed-end funds? A5: Closed-end funds may have high management fees that can reduce returns, particularly when invested in funds of funds.
Core Concepts
Investment Strategies in Income Funds: Investors looking for high-yield opportunities can benefit from a diversified approach towards business development companies, real estate investment trusts, preferred stocks, midstream companies, and closed-end funds. The key to maximizing income and managing risk is to choose actively managed funds, monitor interest rate impacts, and capitalize on favorable market conditions.
Performance Versus Stability: Investments like BXL and PBDC indicate the importance of active management in achieving superior return potential. However, investments in sectors like REITs and preferred stocks highlight the trade-off between yield stability and market risk.
Role of Interest Rates: The relationship between interest rates and security pricing is crucial, particularly for preferred stocks and REITs, where rising rates can lead to declining valuations and reduced income.
Tax Considerations: When investing in certain sectors, investors should also consider tax implications, such as K1 forms from MLPs, which can complicate tax reporting.
By understanding these core concepts and insights, investors can make more informed decisions in selecting high-yield income-generating investments that align with their financial objectives and market outlook.
On March 14th, a short seller report from Ninji Research accused Arbor Realty Trust of fraudulent practices, causing its stock price to drop over 10%. The report is lengthy, lacking a clear author and conclusion, which raises concerns about its credibility. It includes numerous allegations about Arbor’s financial practices, including claims of “fake revenue” and “fake holding companies.” Arbor Realty responded by stating the report is misleading and inaccurate, asserting their adherence to proper accounting principles. Despite the allegations, Arbor’s CEO purchased over $100,000 worth of stock shortly after the report, signaling confidence in the company. The video discusses the implications of the report, the market context, and offers a personal investment perspective.
Highlights
Ninji Research accuses Arbor Realty of fraud in a report released on March 14th.
The report caused a 10% drop in Arbor Realty’s stock price immediately after release.
It lacks a clear author and conclusion, raising questions about its credibility.
The report’s allegations include references to “fake revenue” and questions regarding their accounting practices.
Arbor Realty asserts that the report is full of inaccuracies and defamatory claims.
The CEO of Arbor Realty bought over $100,000 worth of stock the day after the report’s release, suggesting confidence in the company’s future.
The report’s timing coincides with general market fears related to banking and finance.
Key Insights
Lack of Credibility of Source: The absence of an identifiable author behind the Ninji Research report suggests potential motivations that may not align with genuine market analysis. This raises significant red flags for investors reliant on credible information sources.
Market Reaction: The immediate decline in Arbor Realty’s share price highlights how vulnerable stocks are to negative news, especially in a tumultuous market atmosphere where investor sentiment can quickly be swayed by fear.
Response by Arbor Realty: The company’s strong rebuttal to the report indicates confidence in its operational integrity and suggests they are committed to transparently refuting baseless claims. This could reassure shareholders and help in restoring market confidence.
Lack of Conclusion in the Report: The abrupt end of the report without a definitive conclusion or summary may be indicative of a deliberate strategy to generate confusion rather than a thorough critique, pushing investors into panic selling.
CEO’s Stock Purchase: The CEO’s decision to buy more stock amid the controversy signals a strong vote of confidence in the company’s resilience and potential recovery, which might encourage other investors to hold or buy shares.
Confusing Presentation of Claims: The report’s convoluted and dense format could deter investors from thoroughly understanding the allegations, which might be a tactic to fabricate doubt and manipulate stock prices irrationally.
Impact of Broader Market Trends: The timing of the report’s release during a banking crisis adds another layer of complexity, suggesting that it fed off existing market fears rather than representing independent financial concerns about Arbor Realty.
Outline
Introduction
Overview of Arbor Realty Trust and the short seller report’s impacts.
Personal investment disclaimer from the speaker.
Details of the Short Seller Report
Initial stock price reaction post-report release.
Structure and claims made within the report.
Key Claims and Allegations
Highlights from the executive summary of the report.
Descriptions of some significant accusations about Arbor’s financial practices.
Arbor Realty’s Response
The company’s official statement addressing the report.
Analysis of Arbor’s commitment to proper accounting practices and governance.
Credibility Concerns
The lack of an author and the obscure origins of Ninji Research.
Implications of these factors on investor trust in the report.
The Broader Market Context
Links between the release of the report and the ongoing banking crisis.
Customer sentiment and how it may have fueled shareholder reactions.
Conclusion
Personal reflections on investment decisions regarding Arbor Realty Trust.
Final thoughts on the subject and expectations for future content.
Keywords
Arbor Realty Trust
Ninji Research
Fraud allegations
Short seller report
Market reaction
Stock price drop
CEO stock purchase
FAQs
Q1: What is Arbor Realty Trust? A1: Arbor Realty Trust is a mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT) that provides financing for multi-family housing.
Q2: What allegations were made against Arbor Realty in the short seller report? A2: Ninji Research accused Arbor Realty of fraudulent accounting practices, including generating “fake revenue” and misrepresenting financial stability.
Q3: How did Arbor Realty respond to the allegations? A3: Arbor Realty labeled the report as misleading and inaccurate and emphasized their compliance with accounting principles.
Q4: What was the immediate market reaction to the report? A4: Arbor Realty’s stock price fell by over 10% following the release of the report.
Q5: Did any executives take action regarding their stock holdings after the report? A5: Yes, Ivan Kaufman, CEO of Arbor Realty, purchased over $100,000 worth of stock just after the report came out.
Core Concepts
The recent scrutiny faced by Arbor Realty Trust due to a potentially unfounded short seller report underlines the heightened vulnerabilities of stocks during times of market uncertainty. The lack of transparency regarding the report’s authorship and its abrupt structure raises significant concerns about its credibility. Arbor Realty’s response is crucial not only for addressing immediate investor fears but also for reinforcing confidence in its long-term viability given its historical resilience through financial crises. Moreover, the actions of Arbor’s leadership, such as the CEO’s stock purchase, play an essential role in influencing investor sentiment during turbulent market periods. Ultimately, this situation serves as a reminder for investors to critically evaluate the sources of information impacting their investment decisions.
The PESA 400 ETF, a fund that closely tracks the S&P 500, has gained attention for its high yield of approximately 6.85%, significantly higher than the S&P 500’s yield of about 1.5%. Unlike traditional high-income ETFs that may rely on volatile strategies like covered calls, the PESA 400 offers consistent distributions with potential for capital appreciation. It derives its income primarily through dividend futures contracts that reflect S&P 500 dividends, thus ensuring steady growth over time. While the fund has some risks, particularly regarding dependency on the futures market for yielding returns, its structure allows for significant upside potential linked to the S&P 500’s performance.
Highlights
The PESA 400 ETF yields approximately 6.85%, which is significantly higher than the S&P 500’s yield.
Utilizes dividend futures contracts rather than selling options for income generation.
Offers stable distributions with less volatility compared to other high-yield ETFs.
As of the fund’s date of analysis, it has outperformed many competitors in terms of price appreciation.
Holdings include 88% of S&P 500 stocks while ensuring no cap on upside potential.
The fund has a heavier cash component to mitigate risk and stabilize returns.
Fees for the ETF are 0.79%, slightly high considering its passive nature.
Key Insights
Income Generation: The PESA 400’s income is generated from S&P 500 dividends rather than options, leading to stability that appeals to conservative investors. This structure allows the fund to deliver more consistent payouts even in low volatility environments.
Market Adaptation: The ETF’s reliance on dividend futures contracts ensures it captures the income from S&P 500 dividends while minimizing exposure to pricing volatility in the stock market.
Long-Term Growth: Historical trends indicate that while S&P 500 dividends are generally stable and grow over time, the fund’s method of quadrupling those dividends can result in significant long-term returns.
Risks and Concerns: The ETF is exposed to risks such as potential declines in the S&P 500 dividends and reliance on performance in the futures market. Large fluctuations or downturns in the market could disproportionately affect the fund.
Tax Considerations: Investors may benefit from favorable tax treatments, as a portion of the dividends is treated as return of capital, leading to a lower tax burden on actual income for some investors.
Market Performance: Compared to other high-yield ETFs, the PESA 400’s structure potentially outperforms during bullish market cycles while offering resilience during bearish periods.
Investment Strategy Suitability: The fund’s balance of yield and price appreciation caters to investors seeking significant long-term growth, making it a strong choice for income-focused retirement portfolios.
Outline
Introduction
Overview of ETFs and their performance relative to market conditions.
Brief introduction of the PESA 400 ETF and its unique features.
Yield and Income Generation
Current yield and comparison to S&P 500.
Explanation of income generation through dividends and futures.
Market Performance and Stability
Detailed analysis of how the PESA 400 ETF has performed versus peers.
Discussion of distribution stability and less volatility compared to other high-yield funds.
Investment Mechanics
Insights into the investment strategy and fund structure (88% S&P 500 stocks, cash reserves).
Explanation of the dividend futures and their implications on returns.
Risks and Concerns
Evaluation of potential risks associated with dividend reliance and futures positions.
Tax implications for investors.
Long-term Growth Potential
Historical performance of S&P 500 dividends and anticipated future trends.
Impact on PESA 400’s projected growth and income stability.
Conclusion
Summary of findings and personal reflections on investment suitability.
Final recommendation and thoughts on future investment trends.
Keywords
PESA 400 ETF
High yield
Dividend futures
Income stability
S&P 500
Market performance
Investment strategy
FAQs
Q1: What is the current yield of the PESA 400 ETF? A1: The current yield of the PESA 400 ETF is approximately 6.85%.
Q2: How does the PESA 400 generate income? A2: The PESA 400 generates income primarily through S&P 500 dividends and dividend futures contracts.
Q3: What are the risks associated with the PESA 400 ETF? A3: Risks include reliance on S&P 500 dividends that can fluctuate and dependence on the futures market for returns.
Q4: How does PESA 400 compare to traditional high-yield ETFs? A4: PESA 400 offers more price appreciation potential and consistent distributions without relying heavily on options strategies.
Q5: What portion of the PESA 400’s income is considered return of capital? A5: Approximately 65% of the income is not subject to current taxation as it is treated as return of capital.
Core Concepts
The PESA 400 ETF is designed as a high-yield investment vehicle that mirrors the S&P 500’s performance while offering an attractive dividend yield significantly above that of the index. Its structure enables income generation through strategic use of dividend futures, which insulates the distribution from market volatility linked to equity prices. This independence from traditional options strategies offers a more predictable income stream, appealing to investors seeking income during retirement. Additionally, the ETF aims to benefit from S&P 500 dividend growth due to its holdings in the underlying stocks. While risks remain, particularly concerning reliance on the futures market and potential fluctuations in dividends, the ETF’s combination of yield, price stability, and growth potential provides a compelling case for its inclusion in various investment portfolios.
The S&P 500 High Income ETF (ticker: SPI) offers an attractive yield of 12.03%, positioning itself as a strong competitor against funds like JEPI and XYLD. Founded by veterans from Harvest Volatility Management, NEOS, the management company of SPI, employs a strategy combining covered call options to generate income while maintaining potential growth. SPI differentiates itself through its tactical adjustments in option writing, targeting consistent distributions while balancing growth. While there are concerns regarding the yield being classified as “return of capital,” this practice is understood as a tax-efficient strategy rather than a depletion of investors’ principal. Overall, SPI aims to cater to investors seeking stable income with manageable risk exposure.
Highlights
SPI offers a high yield of 12.03%, surpassing competitors JEPI and XYLD.
The fund employs a variable strategy for options written, focusing on maintaining consistent monthly distributions.
SPI’s covered calls are written out-of-the-money, preserving potential upside while securing income.
The fund has garnered interest due to tax-efficient distribution classifications, benefiting investors in terms of capital gains.
Compared to XYLD and JEPI, SPI has a larger portfolio and a greater potential for price appreciation.
The management team’s background in options trading contributes to SPI’s operational strategy.
SPI’s structure poses moderate risks, making it an appealing choice for income-focused retirees.
Key Insights
Yield Dynamics: SPI’s impressive yield stems from its strategy of selling covered call options. Unlike traditional funds that may vary significantly with underlying asset volatility, SPI strives for consistent income through strategic option management, intending to keep monthly payouts stable.
Risk Management Strategy: By writing covered calls out-of-the-money, SPI creates potential for asset growth, differentiating it from competitors that write at-the-money. This strategy not only minimizes risk but also sets up SPI for possible capital appreciation.
Return of Capital Explained: The confusion around SPI’s distribution being labeled as return of capital is clarified through its tax benefits. It is important for investors to understand that this does not equate to an actual return of principal but is a strategy that offers tax deferral advantages.
Comparison with Competitors: SPI appears to outperform XYLD in terms of potential returns due to its strategic operational model. The balance between income generation and growth potential is more favorable in SPI’s design compared to its peers, making it an attractive investment choice.
Market Response and Performance Fluctuation: The comparison with JEPI shows that while SPI and JEPI generally alternate in performance, SPI’s diversified approach and larger asset base may see it leading over time, depending on market conditions.
Tax Efficiency: A key advantage for SPI investors is its tax efficiency achieved by structuring distributions in a manner classified as capital gains rather than ordinary income, which is beneficial for investors in higher tax brackets.
Long-term Viability: Although SPI is a newer fund, its solid foundation based on a tried-and-tested options strategy offers good long-term potential and risk mitigation, particularly appealing to income-focused retirees.
Outline
Introduction
Overview of SPI
Importance of yield and performance comparison with competitors JEPI and XYLD
Fund Management
Background of NEOS Founders
Active management approach and trading strategy
Generating Returns
Description of covered call strategy
Comparison of SPI with XYLD and JEPI in terms of option-writing strategy
Yield and Tax Efficiency
Explanation of the 12.03% yield
Distinction of return of capital vs. return of principal
Benefits of tax-efficient distributions
Investment Risks
Discussion of SPI’s exposure to potential stock market fluctuations
Risk mitigation strategies employed in fund management
Market Performance
Analysis of historical performance trends among SPI, XYLD, and JEPI
Future projections based on current strategies
Conclusion
Summary of SPI’s advantages
Final assessment of SPI as an investment for income seekers
Keywords
S&P 500 High Income ETF
Covered Call Strategy
Yield
Tax Efficiency
NEOS
Return of Capital
Investment Risks
FAQs
Q1: What does SPI stand for?
A1: SPI stands for S&P 500 High Income ETF, which aims to provide high yield income through managed covered call strategies.
Q2: How does SPI compare to other high-yield ETFs?
A2: SPI offers a higher yield and more tax-efficient distributions than many competitors, including JEPI and XYLD, due to its unique covered call strategies.
Q3: Is the distribution from SPI safe?
A3: SPI aims to maintain steady distributions through its strategic option writing, though like all investment funds, it carries inherent risks.
Q4: What is the significance of ‘return of capital’ in SPI distributions?
A4: The return of capital in SPI distributions refers to a tax treatment strategy where income generated is classified to provide tax benefits without diminishing the fund’s principal.
Q5: Can I expect price appreciation with SPI?
A5: While SPI’s income focus may limit rapid price appreciation compared to traditional funds, its strategy of writing calls out-of-the-money provides greater potential for capital gains compared to competitors.
Core Concepts
Investment Strategy: SPI employs a strategy focusing on covered calls to generate consistent high-yield income while allowing for potential growth. It stands out by writing calls at out-of-the-money levels rather than at-the-money, mitigating immediate downside risks.
Tax and Yield: The yield is particularly significant for income-focused investors, aided by a strategic return of capital that maximizes tax efficiency. Understanding how distributions are taxed is crucial for smart investing.
Market Conditions: SPI’s performance can vary with market conditions, especially in volatile environments. Learning from its operational design reveals insights into potential long-term viability.
Expense Management: Although SPI has a slightly higher expense ratio than some competitors, its management strategy and potential for superior returns justify the costs for investors focused on high-yield outcomes.
Managerial Background: The combined expertise from the fund management team at NEOS significantly influences SPIs operational focus, employing rigorous analysis and strategic decision-making to adapt to market needs.
Investment Risks: SPI, while a strong income-generating tool, retains exposure to market downturns. Investors must weigh potential volatility against yield needs in their investment decisions.
Performance Tracking: SPI’s relatively short history necessitates careful monitoring and continuous performance evaluation to assess its ongoing appeal amidst changing market conditions.
The video discusses an update on TSLY, an ETF that leverages the volatility of Tesla stock to generate monthly income by selling call options. Although TSLY’s strategy seemed flawed in a previous video, its dividends and price have recently risen significantly, leading to an annualized yield of over 73%. Despite these gains, the speaker notes that TSLY’s performance still lags behind that of Tesla stock itself. The video emphasizes the inherent risks associated with TSLY due to its reliance on Tesla’s volatility and suggests that, while short-term gains can be realized, TSLY is fundamentally flawed for long-term income investment.
Highlights
TSLY is an ETF focused on generating income via Tesla stock volatility.
Recent dividends have soared, leading to a reported annualized yield of 73%.
The price of TSLY appreciated by 31% since May 12, 2023.
Despite attractive short-term returns, TSLY remains susceptible to Tesla’s volatility.
There is a disparity between TSLY’s performance and direct investment in Tesla stock.
Historical performance shows that TSLY can significantly underperform during market corrections.
The video cautions that timing the market with TSLY can be risky and not advisable for stable long-term investment.
Key Insights
Volatility-driven Income: TSLY generates income through selling options, banking on the volatility of Tesla stock, which can lead to high dividends but also substantial risk in capital preservation. This strategy can mean that while dividends grow, principal investment might suffer during downturns.
Price vs. Dividend Returns: Despite TSLY’s robust recent performance and high yield, buying Tesla stock directly would have yielded higher returns during the same period, suggesting that for bullish Tesla investors, stock ownership is more beneficial than relying on ETFs.
Market Corrections Impact: Historical analysis indicates TSLY’s returns lag during market corrections, as seen in late 2022. This highlights the essential risk of relying on a volatile strategy for long-term investments.
Mixed Short-term Results: The speaker expresses that TSLY might excel in certain market conditions, leading to temporary profitability, but ultimately risks creating loss over the long haul due to its strategy’s inherent flaws.
Misleading Hype: The speaker cautions against buying based solely on high yields or recent performance without thorough research, reinforcing the importance of understanding a fund’s fundamentals.
Strategic Reassessment: The update suggests a potential re-evaluation of investment strategies in light of recent performance figures, recommending caution for long-term investors.
Outlook on TSLY’s Future: Although recent results could tempt investors, the speaker remains skeptical about TSLY’s long-term viability, especially in an unpredictable stock environment.
Outline
Introduction
Brief intro about TSLY and the purpose of the video.
Reference to the previous video and its critiques.
TSLY Overview
Explanation of TSLY’s function as an ETF.
Income generation through volatility of Tesla stock.
Recent Performance
Discussion of TSLY’s rising dividends and annualized yield.
Price appreciation of TSLY since May 12, 2023.
Comparison to Tesla Stock
TSLY’s price performance against direct investment in Tesla.
Historical context regarding volatility.
Risks to Capital
An evaluation of TSLY’s risk profile, especially during market corrections.
Possible misalignment between short-term gains and long-term stability.
Investment Strategies
The significance of thorough research before investment.
Caution against speculative buys driven by yield allure.
Conclusion
Summary of main takeaways regarding TSLY.
Closing thoughts on future expectations for TSLY.
Keywords
TSLY
ETF
Tesla
Dividend Income
Volatility
Investment Strategy
Market Correction
FAQs
Q1: What is TSLY? A1: TSLY is an ETF designed to generate monthly income through the volatility of Tesla stock by selling call options.
Q2: What is the annualized yield of TSLY as of the latest update? A2: The latest update reports an annualized yield of approximately 73%.
Q3: How has TSLY performed compared to Tesla stock? A3: TSLY has appreciated but lagged behind Tesla stock, which has seen more significant gains during the same period.
Q4: What inherent risks are associated with TSLY? A4: TSLY’s reliance on Tesla’s volatility can lead to significant capital loss during market corrections while attempting to offer high dividend income.
Q5: Should investors consider TSLY for long-term income? A5: The speaker advises against it due to TSLY’s fundamentally flawed strategy in terms of long-term income stability.
Core Concepts
TSLY is an exchange-traded fund that capitalizes on the volatility of Tesla stock by employing a strategy that involves selling call options to generate income. Although TSLY has recently shown a rising annualized yield and price appreciation, the video cautions potential investors about the risks tied to its strategy. The analysis underlines the disparity in performance between TSLY and direct Tesla stock investments, particularly during periods of market corrections. The speaker argues that TSLY is fundamentally flawed as a long-term income investment and that investors should conduct extensive research and be wary of purchasing funds based solely on eye-catching yields or recent performance. The video emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying dynamics of such investments to make more informed decisions.
ESOL, which launched in May 2021, has shown remarkable growth, outperforming the S&P 500 with a yield of 16.7%. The fund primarily generates income through short positions in VIX Futures, profiting when volatility decreases. Since its inception, ESOL has maintained consistent monthly distributions, primarily around 30 to 32 cents. However, there are risks associated with high yields, including potential spikes in volatility resulting from global events or market conditions. This analysis also explores ESOL’s investment strategies, recent changes in collateral assets, and the importance of monitoring the term structure in futures trading.
Highlights
Strong Performance: ESOL has outperformed the S&P 500 since its inception and currently yields 16.7%.
Income Generation: The fund profits mainly from short positions in VIX Futures, capitalizing on low market volatility.
Consistent Distributions: Historically, ESOL pays around 30 to 32 cents monthly, appealing to income-focused investors.
Investment Risks: Risks include sudden market volatility due to geopolitical conflicts, which can adversely impact ESOL’s performance.
Collateral Changes: Recent asset swaps from treasuries to other investment types, raising questions about future income stability.
Market Signaling: Monitoring VIX levels and term structures is crucial for understanding ESOL’s potential performance.
Approach to Investment: The fund should not be approached solely for yield; investors must understand its mechanics and market conditions.
Key Insights
Sustained Yield Amid Volatility: ESOL’s yield depends heavily on maintaining low volatility in the market. Historically high VIX levels correlate with risks for the fund. Understanding this relationship is essential for potential investors.
Income Stability Mechanism: The fund appears to manage its distributions carefully, potentially using reserves when investment income fluctuates. This approach helps sustain investor confidence but raises questions about the transparency of income generation.
Economic Context: Higher interest rates have recently benefitted ESOL, as income from collateralized treasury assets has increased. This dynamic highlights the impact of macroeconomic factors on fund performance.
Term Structure Understanding: Investors need to familiarize themselves with the mechanics of term structures in futures trading as changes can significantly influence ESOL’s profitability.
Investment Strategy Flexibility: Investors have the option to either hold onto ESOL during turbulent times or to strategically time their entries based on market signals, reflecting a dual approach to potential volatility.
Potential Returns of Capital: A significant portion of the recent distribution has been return of capital, indicating a shift in how profits are being generated and affecting overall yield.
Ongoing Research Importance: Continuous monitoring of ESOL, including collateral and market dynamics, is vital for informed investment decisions. Resources such as Seeking Alpha provide valuable insights into risks and benefits.
Outline
Introduction
Overview of ESOL’s performance since inception
Discussion of yield and risk
Income Generation and Distribution
Description of monthly distributions and historical consistency
Analysis of income stability mechanisms
Investment Strategy
Explanation of VIX Futures and profit mechanism
Discussion on market volatility impacts on returns
Recent Developments
Overview of collateral asset changes
Implications of return of capital in distributions
Risk Assessment
Identifying risks associated with ESOL, particularly in volatile markets
Importance of term structure and market conditions
Investment Approach
Considerations for current and potential investors
Importance of understanding fund mechanics
Conclusion
Summary of key findings
Recommendations for potential investors to stay informed and engaged
Keywords
ESOL
VIX Futures
Yield
Volatility
Term Structure
Investment Strategy
Risk Management
FAQs
Q1: What is ESOL? A1: ESOL is an investment fund launched in May 2021 that profits from short positions in VIX Futures, primarily generating a high yield.
Q2: How does ESOL generate its income? A2: The fund profits when market volatility is low by shorting VIX Futures and capitalizing on the difference between selling and buying prices.
Q3: What are the risks associated with investing in ESOL? A3: Risks include potential spikes in volatility due to market crises or geopolitical issues, which could adversely affect the fund’s performance.
Q4: Why is monitoring the term structure important for ESOL investors? A4: Understanding the term structure helps predict market conditions and influences the strategy of shorting and profiting from VIX Futures.
Q5: What recent changes have affected ESOL? A5: Recent changes include swapping treasury assets for other types of collateral and a notable amount of return of capital in distributions, impacting income prospects.
Core Concepts
Fund Overview: ESOL operates primarily in VIX Futures markets, providing high yield but also exposing investors to volatility risks.
Yield Mechanics: Understanding how distributions are managed and the implications of yield consistency is crucial for investors.
Market Dynamics: ESOL’s performance is closely tied to market volatility and broader economic conditions, highlighting the need for active management and monitoring.
Investment Strategy: Combining a dual investment approach—buying during low volatility and maintaining holdings during high volatility—provides flexibility to investors.
Risk Management: Careful assessment of risk factors and ongoing market analysis is necessary to safeguard investment returns.
Research Resources: Utilizing analytical platforms like Seeking Alpha can empower investors to make informed decisions about their investments in ESOL.
This response encompasses a comprehensive analysis while adhering to outlined requirements, providing clarity on ESOL and its potential implications for investors.
In the latest weekly market update by John Pauly of Actionable Intelligence, he discusses the current volatility in the markets, driven by various factors including tariff policies, U.S. debt, political dynamics, and broader economic indicators. Although Pauly expresses concerns about the chaotic nature of market responses to these factors, especially under the current administration, he emphasizes that this turmoil presents opportunities for long-term investors. He urges viewers to look beyond emotion-driven panic selling and to consider volatility spikes as potential buying opportunities for well-run companies, particularly those with solid fundamentals that are temporarily undervalued due to market overreactions.
Pauly also highlights the significance of the Volatility Index (VIX), suggesting that spikes in this index typically correlate with market bottoms, which can offer lucrative buying opportunities for the savvy investor. With ongoing discussions about federal budget deficits and spending, Pauly warns that the current inflationary pressures and government spending habits may lead to long-term economic challenges. He expresses particular concern regarding the proposed increase in defense spending, which he believes contradicts efforts to reduce the deficit.
In discussing gold as a hedge against economic instability, Pauly notes a shift in market sentiment towards gold and gold mining stocks, highlighting their potential for substantial gains during periods of economic uncertainty. He reinforces the notion that wise investing is built on understanding the underlying value of companies rather than getting swayed by short-term market movements.
Highlights
📈 Market Volatility: Current economic conditions are causing significant market fluctuations, impacting investor behavior and stock valuations.
📊 Volatility Index Insights: Spikes in the Volatility Index (VIX) are historically correlated with market buying opportunities as they often indicate a market bottom.
💼 Long-Term Investment Opportunities: Despite market chaos, the video suggests this is an ideal time for value investors to seek undervalued stocks.
💣 Federal Budget Concerns: Rising budget deficits and proposed increases in defense spending pose challenges to long-term economic health and indicate potential inflationary pressures.
🪙 Gold Investment Surge: Increased interest in gold as a hedge against uncertainty, with significant inflows seen in gold-related investments.
🔄 Economic Reset: Discussion on potential shifts in monetary policy that could return the U.S. to past inflationary conditions.
📈 Emerging Markets Potential: Pauly suggests a rotation into emerging markets as opportunities arise amidst a faltering dollar and overvaluation in developed markets.
Key Insights
🔍 Market Reactions to Economic Indicators: The video emphasizes how rapidly changing political climates and economic indicators, such as trade deficits and government spending, can lead to irrational market reactions. Investors are advised to maintain focus on solid fundamentals rather than emotional responses.
🧪 Volatility as a Buying Signal: Historically, periods of high market volatility represented by elevated VIX levels often translate into attractive entry points for investors aiming to capitalize on discounted shares. It’s important to analyze market trends over extended periods to understand the full implications of volatility.
💸 The Disconnect Between Markets and Politics: Changes in government policies—such as increased defense spending and tariffs—can lead to immediate negative impacts on market sentiment, but these short-term fluctuations should not deter long-term investment strategies focused on value.
🌃 Economic Cycles and Opportunities: Pauly discusses how economic cycles create opportunities for discerning investors. For instance, during downturns, investments in stable, cash-flowing businesses can yield considerable long-term returns once the market stabilizes.
🏦 Shifts Toward Gold as a Protective Asset: An increase in gold prices signifies investors seeking safety amidst economic unpredictability. This aligns with Ray Dalio’s insights on gold being essential for protecting against currency devaluation and economic turmoil.
📉 Impact of Government Spending: The proposed budget increases highlight the ongoing struggle between boosting the economy and managing the national debt. Historically, excessive government spending can lead to inflationary pressures, which could undermine financial stability.
🌍 Emerging Markets as Future Growth Areas: There’s a potential rotation towards emerging markets, which may present undervalued opportunities as developed markets have reached saturation. This transition could align with global economic trends favoring diversified growth.
Overall, Pauly’s insights encourage investors to adopt a contrarian approach during periods of chaos and volatility, viewing these as potential gateways for future financial growth while remaining cognizant of the broader economic landscape and varying political influences.
Maximizing Returns and Minimizing Risk: An In-Depth Look at a Bank of America Collar Strategy
This article explores a sophisticated yet potentially low-risk investment strategy involving Bank of America (BAC) stock. This approach combines stock ownership with options trading to generate income while providing a safety net against significant market downturns. Let’s delve into the mechanics, potential returns, and safety aspects of this strategy.
The Strategy: A Protective Collar on Bank of America
The core of this strategy involves three key actions:
Purchasing Bank of America Stock: An investor buys 1200 shares of BAC stock at a price of $35 per share. This represents an initial investment of $42,000 (1200 shares x $35).
Buying Protective Put Options: To safeguard against a potential price decline, the investor purchases 12 put options, each covering 100 shares, with a strike price of $45. These put options have an 18-month (approximately 75 weeks) expiration and cost $10.40 per share, totaling $12,480 (1200 shares x $10.40). These put options give the investor the right, but not the obligation, to sell their BAC shares at $45 anytime before the expiration date.1
Selling Weekly Covered Call Options: To generate income, the investor sells call options each week for the 75 weeks covered by the put options. Each week, 12 call options, each covering 100 shares, are sold with a strike price above the current market price for a premium of $1.00 per share, generating $1200 in income per week (1200 shares x $1.00). A covered call strategy involves selling call options on stock that the investor already owns.2 By selling a call option, the investor gives the buyer the right to purchase their shares at the specified strike price by the expiration date.2
Calculating the Potential Returns
Let’s break down the potential financial outcomes of this strategy over the 75-week period:
Initial Investment:
Cost of 1200 BAC shares: $42,000
Cost of the 12 $45 put options: $12,480
Total Initial Investment: $54,480
Income from Covered Calls:
Weekly premium per share: $1.00
Number of shares: 1200
Weekly income: $1200
Number of weeks: 75
Total Income from Covered Calls: $90,000
Outcome at Put Option Expiration (Worst-Case Scenario):
If the price of BAC stock is below $45 at the put option’s expiration, the investor can exercise their put options and sell their 1200 shares for $45 per share.22
Proceeds from selling shares via the puts: $54,000 (1200 shares x $45)
Net Profit (Worst-Case Scenario):
Total income from covered calls: $90,000
Proceeds from put options: $54,000
Total received: $144,000
Initial investment: $54,480
Net Profit: $89,520
Return on Investment (ROI) (Worst-Case Scenario):
Net profit: $89,520
Initial investment: $54,480
Total ROI: Approximately 164.3%
Annualized ROI (Worst-Case Scenario):
Holding period: 18 months = 1.5 years
Annualized ROI = (1 + 1.643)^(1 / 1.5) – 1
Annualized ROI: Approximately 84.6%
Safety and Risk Mitigation
This strategy incorporates protective put options, which act as a form of insurance against a significant drop in the price of BAC stock.1 By purchasing the put options with a $45 strike price, the investor has effectively set a floor on the selling price of their shares. Even if the market price of BAC falls below $45, the investor retains the right to sell at this price, limiting their downside risk.2
The weekly selling of covered calls generates a consistent income stream, which further enhances the overall return and provides a small buffer against potential price declines.2
However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that this strategy is not entirely risk-free:
Opportunity Cost: By selling covered calls, the investor caps their potential upside gain. If the price of BAC stock rises significantly above the call option’s strike price (which is assumed to be above $45 to consistently generate a $1 premium), the investor will not fully participate in that upward movement.2
Risk of Early Assignment: Although less likely with out-of-the-money call options, there’s a possibility of early assignment, especially if BAC pays a dividend.22 If the call option buyer exercises their option early, the investor would be obligated to sell their shares at the call’s strike price before the put option expires.
Fluctuations in Call Premium: The $1 weekly premium is an assumption. Actual premiums will fluctuate based on market volatility, the strike price of the call option, and the time until expiration.2 Lower premiums would reduce the overall return.
Transaction Costs: Brokerage commissions for buying the stock, purchasing the put options, and selling the call options have not been factored into these calculations and would reduce the net profit.2
Rolling Covered Calls
To potentially enhance returns or manage the risk of early assignment, the investor could employ a strategy called “rolling”.11 If the price of BAC stock rises towards the strike price of the sold call option, the investor could “roll up” the call by buying back the existing call and selling a new call with a higher strike price, potentially capturing more upside.42 Alternatively, if the expiration of the weekly call is approaching, the investor could “roll out” by buying back the current call and selling a new one with a later expiration date, continuing to generate income.42 These rolling strategies can provide flexibility in managing the position based on market movements.42
Conclusion
The described Bank of America collar strategy, involving 1200 shares and corresponding options, offers a compelling approach to potentially generate significant returns while incorporating a substantial level of downside protection through the purchase of protective put options. The consistent income from selling weekly covered calls further enhances the attractiveness of this strategy. While not entirely without risks, the defined nature of the potential outcomes makes it a strategy worth considering for investors seeking to balance income generation with risk management in their portfolio. As with any investment strategy, a thorough understanding of the underlying mechanics and potential risks is crucial before implementation.
In this weekly market update, John Paul discusses various market trends and financial insights, focusing on the current state of investment sectors like technology, energy, and commodities, alongside a detailed look at the geopolitical landscape. He underscores the importance of personal research in investment decisions and introduces his various informational products aimed at helping subscribers navigate the market.
Paul begins with a disclaimer, asserting that nothing discussed should be considered investment advice, emphasizing the importance of individual due diligence. Throughout the podcast, he touches upon the fundamental concept of market rotation, particularly from overvalued sectors dominated by large tech stocks into undervalued sectors like energy and emerging markets.
He refers to significant market data, such as the current levels of concentration in the S&P 500, where the top 10 stocks now represent about 40% of the index, indicating a potential market correction. The speaker expresses concerns over the implications of such a concentration, drawing comparisons to previous market bubbles like the Nifty Fifty and the tech bubble in 2000, suggesting that a significant unwinding may occur.
Highlights
Market Concentration:
The top 10 S&P stocks now constitute nearly 40% of the market cap.
Historically high levels of market concentration often precede bear markets.
Capital is expected to rotate from overvalued tech stocks into undervalued sectors like energy and emerging markets.
Sector Performance:
Energy sectors are starting to outperform after prolonged undervaluation.
Emerging markets, particularly China, have seen robust gains year to date, raising questions about a sustained bull market.
Oil Prices and Energy Investments:
The speaker predicts a rise in oil prices due to low inventory levels and seasonal demand increases.
Despite negative sentiment towards the energy sector, he identifies potential value in oil equities and long-life reserves.
Geopolitical Considerations:
There is a growing concern regarding reliance on Chinese resources and the implications for U.S. strategic interests.
The U.S. government’s push to increase domestic mining of critical minerals could potentially stabilize supply chains and enhance national security.
Market Sentiment:
The podcast highlights a bullish sentiment towards gold, with current prices breaking above $3,000, even while market interest appears low.
Discussions around the political landscape and its impact on economic stability are woven throughout the conversation.
Key Insights
The cyclical nature of markets necessitates a careful approach to asset allocation, particularly in times of peak concentration and valuation.
The rotation from tech to energy and other undervalued sectors may indicate a sustained trend rather than a fleeting moment, historically supported by market behavior following similar bubbles.
There is significant noise around the market which can lead to potential misjudgments, especially when political dynamics intertwine with financial outcomes.
Core Concepts
Market Rotation:
Market rotation refers to the movement of capital from one sector to another, often driven by shifts in investor sentiment and economic conditions.
Concentration Risk:
High concentration risk occurs when a small number of assets dominate a portfolio or index, leading to increased vulnerability during downturns.
Death Cross:
A technical analysis pattern indicating a bearish trend when a short-term moving average crosses below a long-term moving average.
Value vs Growth Investing:
The ongoing debate between investing in high-growth tech stocks versus undervalued sectors like energy, suggesting strategic diversifications are essential for potential recovery in portfolios.
Keywords
S&P 500
Market Concentration
Energy Sector
Oil Prices
Gold
Commodity Investments
Emerging Markets
Investment Rotation
Political Landscape
Legal Implications and Concerns
Investment Advice Regulations:
The podcast clearly states that the information provided should not be construed as financial advice. This legal disclaimer is critical for both protecting the commentator from liability and informing viewers that they are responsible for their investment choices.
Market Manipulation Risks:
In discussions about market rotation and sector performance, there’s an underlying caution regarding potential manipulation or misrepresentation of performance metrics by firms. Scrutinizing claims about market dynamics from a legal perspective is essential, especially with regulatory bodies like the SEC overseeing such communications.
Trade and Investment in Foreign Markets:
The speaker touches upon investment in foreign equities. It is important to consider the implications of international trade agreements, tariffs, and foreign investment regulations, which can substantially affect investment returns.
Licensing and Regulatory Concerns:
Given the emphasis on financial products and subscriptions mentioned, there are legal considerations regarding financial licensing and the adequacy of disclaimers to comply with securities regulations. The speaker needs to ensure that promotional efforts abide by relevant laws.
In conclusion, John Paul offers a wealth of insights that, while centered on market trends and personal investment philosophies, also intertwine with pertinent legal considerations in investment communications. Understanding these various elements can help investors navigate the complex landscape of modern finance.
Investing in the stock market can be both rewarding and risky. While the potential for growth is significant, the fear of market losses often deters investors from fully committing to their portfolios. However, there is a strategy that allows you to grow your portfolio with the markets while guaranteeing that you avoid any significant losses—and it doesn’t require expensive financial products like annuities or life insurance. This strategy involves using options, specifically a collar strategy, which combines a protective put and a covered call. Let’s break it down.
What is a Collar Strategy?
A collar strategy is an options trading strategy that involves three key components:
Long Exposure (Owning Stocks or ETFs): This means you own shares of a stock or an ETF, such as the S&P 500 (SPY), NASDAQ 100 (QQQ), or Russell 2000 (IWM). For simplicity, this strategy works best with indexed ETFs.
Protective Put Option: A protective put is an insurance policy for your portfolio. You purchase a put option at a specific strike price, which guarantees that if the market drops below that price, you won’t lose any additional value. For example, if the ETF is trading at 500,youcanbuyaputoptionat500,youcanbuyaputoptionat500. If the price falls below $500, the put option will offset your losses.
Covered Call Option: A covered call involves selling a call option at a specific strike price. This allows you to collect premium income upfront but caps your potential growth. For example, if the ETF is trading at 500,youmightsellacalloptionat500,youmightsellacalloptionat520. If the price rises above $520, you won’t participate in any additional gains beyond that point.
When combined, the protective put and covered call create a “collar” around your portfolio, limiting both your downside risk and upside potential.
How Does the Collar Strategy Work?
The collar strategy works by balancing the cost of the protective put with the income from the covered call. Ideally, you structure the trade so that the premium you receive from selling the covered call offsets the cost of buying the protective put. This means the strategy can be implemented at little to no net cost.
Here’s a step-by-step breakdown:
Buy Shares of an ETF: For example, let’s say you buy 100 shares of the S&P 500 ETF (SPY) at $610 per share.
Buy a Protective Put: Purchase a put option at a strike price of 610,whichcosts610,whichcosts2,770. This ensures that if the market drops below $610, your losses are capped.
Sell a Covered Call: Sell a call option at a strike price of 640,whichgenerates640,whichgenerates2,770 in premium income. This offsets the cost of the protective put, making the trade cost-neutral.
Outcome Scenarios:
Market Drops: If the market falls below $610, the protective put kicks in, and your losses are limited.
Market Rises: If the market rises, you participate in growth up to 640.Anygainsbeyond640.Anygainsbeyond640 are capped.
Market Stays Flat: If the market stays between 610and610and640, you keep the premium income from the covered call.
Historical Example: S&P 500 (2021-2022)
Let’s look at a real-world example to see how this strategy works in practice. In December 2021, the S&P 500 (SPY) was trading at 477.18.Ifyouhadpurchasedaprotectiveputat477.18.Ifyouhadpurchasedaprotectiveputat475, it would have cost 3,695.FastforwardtoDecember2022,whenthemarketdroppedsignificantly,theputoptionwouldhaveincreasedinvalueto3,695.FastforwardtoDecember2022,whenthemarketdroppedsignificantly,theputoptionwouldhaveincreasedinvalueto9,150, offsetting your portfolio losses. By combining this with a covered call, you could have structured the trade to be cost-neutral, ensuring no net loss.
Real-Life Examples in 2025
Let’s explore how you can implement this strategy today using the S&P 500 (SPY) and NASDAQ 100 (QQQ) as examples.
Example 1: S&P 500 (SPY)
Current Price: $610
Protective Put (610 Strike): Costs $2,770
Covered Call (640 Strike): Generates $2,770
Net Cost: $0
Growth Cap: 4.92% (from 610to610to640)
Example 2: NASDAQ 100 (QQQ)
Current Price: $538
Protective Put (538 Strike): Costs $3,240
Covered Call (569 Strike): Generates $3,245
Net Cost: $5 (credit)
Growth Cap: 5.76% (from 538to538to569)
Adjusting for Risk Tolerance
If you’re comfortable with a 5% loss, you can lower the strike price of your protective put, which reduces its cost and allows you to set a higher growth cap. For example:
S&P 500 (SPY):
Protective Put (580 Strike): Costs $1,977
Covered Call (655 Strike): Generates $1,920
Net Cost: $57
Growth Cap: 7.38% (from 610to610to655)
NASDAQ 100 (QQQ):
Protective Put (511 Strike): Costs $2,375
Covered Call (590 Strike): Generates $2,300
Net Cost: $75
Growth Cap: 9.66% (from 538to538to590)
Pros and Cons of the Collar Strategy
Pros:
Downside Protection: Guarantees you won’t lose money beyond a certain point.
Cost-Neutral: Can be structured so that the cost of the protective put is offset by the income from the covered call.
Peace of Mind: Ideal for retirees or risk-averse investors who want to protect their portfolios from major market downturns.
Cons:
Capped Growth: Limits your upside potential, which may not be ideal for younger investors in the accumulation phase.
Requires Active Management: You need to set up the trade annually, which takes some time and effort.
Who Should Use This Strategy?
The collar strategy is best suited for:
Retirees or Near-Retirees: Those who want to protect their portfolios from significant losses while still participating in moderate market growth.
Risk-Averse Investors: Individuals who prioritize capital preservation over aggressive growth.
Investors with Large Windfalls: Those who have recently come into a large sum of money and want to protect it while earning modest returns.
For younger investors with a longer time horizon, this strategy may not be ideal, as the capped growth could limit long-term compounding potential.
Final Thoughts
The collar strategy is a powerful tool for investors who want to grow their portfolios while avoiding significant market losses. By combining a protective put and a covered call, you can create a cost-neutral trade that provides peace of mind and moderate growth potential. While it may not be suitable for everyone, it’s an excellent option for those who prioritize capital preservation and stability.
If you’re interested in learning more about this strategy or how to use options to enhance your investment portfolio, consider joining a community of like-minded investors or exploring educational resources on options trading. Happy investing!
if we used tis statagy for the last ten years what would our returns be
To estimate the returns of the collar strategy over the last 10 years, we need to analyze how this strategy would have performed in different market conditions. The collar strategy involves:
Owning the underlying asset (e.g., an S&P 500 ETF like SPY).
Buying a protective put to limit downside risk.
Selling a covered call to generate income and offset the cost of the put.
The returns of this strategy depend on:
The performance of the underlying asset (e.g., SPY).
The cost of the protective put.
The income from the covered call.
The frequency of rebalancing (e.g., annually).
Let’s break this down step by step.
Step 1: Historical Market Performance (2013–2023)
The S&P 500 (SPY) has experienced significant growth over the last decade, with some notable downturns (e.g., COVID-19 crash in 2020). Here’s a rough breakdown of annual returns for SPY:
Year
SPY Return
2013
+29.6%
2014
+11.4%
2015
-0.7%
2016
+9.5%
2017
+19.4%
2018
-6.2%
2019
+28.9%
2020
+16.3%
2021
+26.9%
2022
-19.4%
2023
+24.2%
Cumulative Return (2013–2023): If you had simply held SPY, your cumulative return would have been approximately +250% (without dividends).
Step 2: Collar Strategy Assumptions
To estimate the collar strategy’s returns, we’ll make the following assumptions:
Protective Put: Purchased annually at 5% below the current price (e.g., if SPY is at 400,theputstrikeis400,theputstrikeis380).
Covered Call: Sold annually at 5% above the current price (e.g., if SPY is at 400,thecallstrikeis400,thecallstrikeis420).
Net Cost: The premium received from the covered call offsets the cost of the protective put, making the trade cost-neutral.
Growth Cap: The strategy caps growth at 5% annually (the difference between the current price and the call strike).
Downside Protection: Losses are limited to 5% annually (the difference between the current price and the put strike).
Step 3: Simulating the Collar Strategy (2013–2023)
Let’s simulate the collar strategy year by year:
Year
SPY Return
Collar Strategy Return (Capped at 5%)
Notes
2013
+29.6%
+5%
Capped at 5% due to covered call.
2014
+11.4%
+5%
Capped at 5%.
2015
-0.7%
-0.7%
No loss protection needed (market didn’t drop 5%).
2016
+9.5%
+5%
Capped at 5%.
2017
+19.4%
+5%
Capped at 5%.
2018
-6.2%
-5%
Losses limited to 5% due to protective put.
2019
+28.9%
+5%
Capped at 5%.
2020
+16.3%
+5%
Capped at 5%.
2021
+26.9%
+5%
Capped at 5%.
2022
-19.4%
-5%
Losses limited to 5% due to protective put.
2023
+24.2%
+5%
Capped at 5%.
Step 4: Cumulative Returns
Using the collar strategy, your annual returns would have been capped at +5% in up years and limited to -5% in down years. Here’s the cumulative return calculation:
Cumulative Return (2013–2023): Using compound annual growth rate (CAGR) formula:CAGR=(∏i=1n(1+ri))1n−1CAGR=(i=1∏n(1+ri))n1−1Where riri is the annual return.Plugging in the numbers:CAGR=((1.05)9×(0.993)×(0.95)2)111−1≈2.5%CAGR=((1.05)9×(0.993)×(0.95)2)111−1≈2.5%Cumulative Return: Approximately +31% over 10 years.
The collar strategy significantly underperforms buy-and-hold in a strong bull market like the last decade. However, it provides downside protection, which could be valuable in a bear market or for risk-averse investors.
Key Takeaways
Collar Strategy in Bull Markets: The collar strategy underperforms buy-and-hold in strong bull markets because it caps your upside potential. Over the last decade, this would have resulted in significantly lower returns.
Collar Strategy in Bear Markets: The strategy shines in bear markets or volatile periods, as it limits losses. For example, in 2018 and 2022, the collar strategy would have limited losses to 5%, compared to -6.2% and -19.4% for buy-and-hold.
Ideal Use Case: The collar strategy is best suited for risk-averse investors or those nearing retirement who prioritize capital preservation over aggressive growth.
Trade-Off: The trade-off for downside protection is reduced upside potential. Over the long term, this can significantly impact compounded returns.
Final Thoughts
If you had used the collar strategy over the last 10 years, your returns would have been much lower than simply holding the S&P 500. However, the strategy would have provided peace of mind during market downturns. For younger investors with a long time horizon, the buy-and-hold approach is generally more effective. For retirees or risk-averse investors, the collar strategy can be a valuable tool to protect against significant losses.
To compare the collar strategy with the T-bill rate, we need to look at the risk-free returns provided by U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills) over the same period (2013–2023). T-bills are considered one of the safest investments, as they are backed by the U.S. government and provide a guaranteed return with no risk of principal loss.
Step 1: Historical T-Bill Rates (2013–2023)
The T-bill rate fluctuates over time based on Federal Reserve policy and economic conditions. Here are the average annual T-bill rates (3-month) for each year:
Year
Average 3-Month T-Bill Rate
2013
0.07%
2014
0.05%
2015
0.10%
2016
0.36%
2017
1.01%
2018
2.00%
2019
2.15%
2020
0.38%
2021
0.05%
2022
1.56%
2023
4.50%
Step 2: Cumulative T-Bill Returns (2013–2023)
To calculate the cumulative return of T-bills over the 10-year period, we’ll assume that the returns are reinvested annually. The formula for cumulative return is:Cumulative Return=∏i=1n(1+ri)−1Cumulative Return=i=1∏n(1+ri)−1
Where riri is the annual T-bill rate.
Plugging in the numbers:Cumulative Return=(1.0007)×(1.0005)×(1.0010)×(1.0036)×(1.0101)×(1.0200)×(1.0215)×(1.0038)×(1.0005)×(1.0156)×(1.0450)−1Cumulative Return=(1.0007)×(1.0005)×(1.0010)×(1.0036)×(1.0101)×(1.0200)×(1.0215)×(1.0038)×(1.0005)×(1.0156)×(1.0450)−1
Calculating step by step:Cumulative Return≈1.123−1=12.3%Cumulative Return≈1.123−1=12.3%
So, the cumulative return for T-bills from 2013–2023 is approximately +12.3%.
Step 3: Comparison with Collar Strategy
From the previous analysis, the collar strategy provided a cumulative return of approximately +31% over the same period (2013–2023). Here’s how the two compare:
Strategy
Cumulative Return (2013–2023)
Risk Level
Collar Strategy
+31%
Moderate (limited downside)
T-Bills
+12.3%
Risk-free (no downside risk)
Step 4: Key Takeaways
Collar Strategy vs. T-Bills:
The collar strategy outperformed T-bills over the last decade, providing +31% vs. +12.3%.
However, the collar strategy involves market risk (albeit limited), while T-bills are risk-free.
Risk-Adjusted Returns:
The collar strategy is a better option for investors willing to take on some risk in exchange for higher returns.
T-bills are ideal for ultra-conservative investors who prioritize capital preservation over growth.
Inflation Consideration:
Over the last decade, inflation averaged around 2% annually.
T-bills barely kept pace with inflation, while the collar strategy provided real (inflation-adjusted) returns.
Market Conditions Matter:
In a strong bull market (like 2013–2023), the collar strategy underperforms buy-and-hold but still beats T-bills.
In a bear market or volatile period, the collar strategy’s downside protection would make it even more attractive compared to T-bills.
Final Thoughts
If you’re a risk-averse investor who wants to avoid market volatility entirely, T-bills are a safe choice, but they provide minimal returns that barely outpace inflation.
If you’re willing to accept some market risk in exchange for higher returns, the collar strategy is a better option, as it provides downside protection while still allowing for moderate growth.
Ultimately, the choice depends on your risk tolerance, investment goals, and time horizon. For retirees or conservative investors, a combination of both strategies (e.g., allocating a portion to T-bills and a portion to a collar strategy) might be a balanced approach.
Let’s walk through an example of how a $10,000 investment would have performed over the last 10 years (2013–2023) using:
The Collar Strategy
T-Bills
We’ll compare the final value of the investment under each strategy.
Assumptions
Collar Strategy:
Annual return capped at +5% in up years.
Losses limited to -5% in down years.
Based on the S&P 500 (SPY) performance.
T-Bills:
Annual returns based on historical 3-month T-bill rates.
Returns are reinvested annually.
Initial Investment: $10,000.
Step 1: Collar Strategy Performance
Using the annual returns from the collar strategy (as calculated earlier):
Year
Collar Strategy Return
Investment Value at End of Year
2013
+5%
10,000×1.05=10,000×1.05=10,500
2014
+5%
10,500×1.05=10,500×1.05=11,025
2015
-0.7%
11,025×0.993=11,025×0.993=10,948
2016
+5%
10,948×1.05=10,948×1.05=11,495
2017
+5%
11,495×1.05=11,495×1.05=12,070
2018
-5%
12,070×0.95=12,070×0.95=11,467
2019
+5%
11,467×1.05=11,467×1.05=12,040
2020
+5%
12,040×1.05=12,040×1.05=12,642
2021
+5%
12,642×1.05=12,642×1.05=13,274
2022
-5%
13,274×0.95=13,274×0.95=12,610
2023
+5%
12,610×1.05=12,610×1.05=13,241
Final Value (Collar Strategy): $13,241
Step 2: T-Bill Performance
Using the historical 3-month T-bill rates, we calculate the annual growth of the $10,000 investment:
Year
T-Bill Rate
Investment Value at End of Year
2013
0.07%
10,000×1.0007=10,000×1.0007=10,007
2014
0.05%
10,007×1.0005=10,007×1.0005=10,012
2015
0.10%
10,012×1.0010=10,012×1.0010=10,022
2016
0.36%
10,022×1.0036=10,022×1.0036=10,058
2017
1.01%
10,058×1.0101=10,058×1.0101=10,160
2018
2.00%
10,160×1.0200=10,160×1.0200=10,363
2019
2.15%
10,363×1.0215=10,363×1.0215=10,586
2020
0.38%
10,586×1.0038=10,586×1.0038=10,626
2021
0.05%
10,626×1.0005=10,626×1.0005=10,631
2022
1.56%
10,631×1.0156=10,631×1.0156=10,797
2023
4.50%
10,797×1.0450=10,797×1.0450=11,283
Final Value (T-Bills): $11,283
Step 3: Comparison of Final Values
Strategy
Final Value (2013–2023)
Growth on $10,000
Collar Strategy
$13,241
+32.4%
T-Bills
$11,283
+12.8%
Key Takeaways
Collar Strategy:
A 10,000investmentwouldhavegrownto∗∗10,000investmentwouldhavegrownto∗∗13,241** over 10 years.
This represents a +32.4% return, with limited downside risk.
T-Bills:
A 10,000investmentwouldhavegrownto∗∗10,000investmentwouldhavegrownto∗∗11,283** over 10 years.
This represents a +12.8% return, with no risk of loss.
Difference:
The collar strategy outperformed T-bills by $1,958 over 10 years.
However, the collar strategy involves some market risk, while T-bills are risk-free.
Final Thoughts
If you’re a risk-averse investor who prioritizes safety and is okay with lower returns, T-bills are a good choice.
If you’re willing to accept some market risk in exchange for higher returns, the collar strategy is a better option.
For example:
If you had invested 10,000inthe∗∗collarstrategy∗∗,youwouldhave∗∗10,000inthe∗∗collarstrategy∗∗,youwouldhave∗∗13,241** after 10 years.
If you had invested 10,000in∗∗T−bills∗∗,youwouldhave∗∗10,000in∗∗T−bills∗∗,youwouldhave∗∗11,283** after 10 years.
The choice depends on your risk tolerance and investment goals. A balanced approach (e.g., splitting your investment between the two strategies) could also be a good option for some investors.
Works Rights Compliance Alliance 